(ii) Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Anr. v. CONTENTS Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Anr...... 187 A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra Govind Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy & Ors...... 1 Pawaskar & Anr...... 735 Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq ..... 1033 Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr.; Kolkata Anees-ul-Haq (K.M.); Abdul Rehman & Ors. v...... 1033 Metropolitan Development Authority v...... 373 Ashiwin S. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of & Ors...... 1000 Maharashtra ..... 921 Ashok Kumar Lingala v. State of Karnataka Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors...... 800 (The) v. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors ..... 328 Association of Unified Telecom Service J & K Housing Board & Anr. v. Kunwar Sanjay Providers of India and Ors.; Union of India Krishan Kaul & Ors...... 976 and Anr. v...... 657 Johny (K.M.) & Ors.; Thermax Ltd. Baby and Anr.; Vijayan (R.) v...... 712 & Ors. (M/s) v...... 154 Banatwala & Company v. L.I.C. of India & Anr...... 533 Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another...... 1204 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors...... 502 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr. .... 373 Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors.; J & K Ors. v. Surendra Nath Pandey and Ors...... 840 Housing Board & Anr. v...... 976 Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijayalaxmi ..... 1050 L.I.C. of India & Anr.; Banatwala & Company v...... 533 Deepak Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh ..... 270 Loganathan (S.) v. Union of India and Ors...... 1081 Dimple @ Kajal; Pankaj Mahajan v...... 945 M.S.S. Food Products (M/s.); Rasiklal Divisional Controller (The), KSRTC v. Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. v...... 1141 M.G. Vittal Rao ..... 1089 Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. (M/s) & Anr.; State of U.P. & Ors. v...... 98 (i) (iii) (iv) Mrinal Das & Ors. v. The State of Tripura ..... 411 Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra ..... 617 Mukesh Kumar & Ors.; State of Haryana v...... 211 Santhakumari (R.) Velusamy & Ors.; Bharat Narasimha (B.) Reddy & Ors.; A.P. Dairy Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v...... 502 Development Corporation Federation v...... 1 Shaunak H. Satya & Ors; Institute of Chartered Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors.; Accountants of India (The) v...... 328 National Textile Corporation Ltd. (The) v...... 472 Shila Datta & Ors.; United Insurance National Textile Corporation Ltd. (The) v. Co. Ltd. v...... 763 Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors...... 472 Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement Om Prakash & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr...... 240 and another; Ketan V. Parekh v...... 1204 Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal ..... 945 SSang Yong Engineering and Construction Parmender Kumar & Ors. v. State of Co. Ltd.; Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v...... 301 Haryana & Ors...... 1065 SSang Yong Engineering and Construction Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab Co. Ltd.; Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v...... 324 & Anr. Etc...... 862 State of Haryana & Ors.; Parmender Kumar Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana & Ors. v...... 1065 and Others ..... 1113 State of Haryana and Others; Raghbir Singh Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar & Anr.; Sehrawat v...... 1113 Goa Housing Board v...... 735 State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors...... 211 Ramji Veerji Patel & Ors. v. Revenue State of Himachal Pradesh; Deepak Verma v...... 270 Divisional Officer & Ors...... 821 State of Karnataka & Ors.; Ashok Kumar Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. Lingala v...... 800 M/s. M.S.S. Food Products ..... 1141 State of Maharashtra; Haresh Mohandas Revenue Divisional Officer & Ors.; Ramji Veerji Rajput v...... 921 Patel & Ors. v...... 821 State of Maharashtra; Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Anr; Thakur v...... 617 Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Anr. v...... 187 (v) (vi) State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.; Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. SSang Yong Prithipal Singh Etc. v...... 862 Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd...... 301 State of Tripura (The); Mrinal Das & Ors. v...... 411 Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. SSang Yong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd...... 324 State of U.P. & Ors. v. M/s Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & Anr...... 98 Surendra Nath Pandey and Ors.; Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. v...... 840 Thermax Ltd. & Ors. (M/s) v. K.M. Johny & Ors...... 154 Trans Mediterranean Airways v. M/s Universal Exports & Anr...... 47 Union of India & Anr.; Om Prakash & Anr. v...... 240 Union of India & Ors.; Ashiwin S. Mehta & Anr. v...... 1000 Union of India and Anr. v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India and Ors...... 657 Union of India and Ors.; Loganathan (S.) v...... 1081 United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Ors...... 763 Universal Exports (M/s) & Anr.; Trans Mediterranean Airways v...... 47 Vijayalaxmi (S.); Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. v. . .. 1050 Vijayan (R.) v. Baby and Anr...... 712 Vittal (M.G.) Rao; Divisional Controller (The), KSRTC v...... 1089 (viii) Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager SUBJECT-INDEX (PJ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 314 A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Shiva Sankar Prasad 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 625 – relied on ... 1092 – relied on ... 1095 Alagh (S.K.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2008 (2) SCR 1088 Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1985 (Supp) SCC 599 – relied on ... 157 – relied on ... 418 All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Achala (B.P.) Anand v. S. Appi Reddy & Anr. Bombay & Ors. 1962 SCR 269 2005 (2) SCR 3 – relied on ... 6 – relied on ... 872 All India Employees Association (Railways) v. Administrator General of West Bengal v. V.K. Agarwal 2001 (10) SCC 165 Collector, Varanasi 1988 (2) SCR 1025 ... 385 – relied on ... 508 – relied on ... 738 Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan & Anr. Air India Corporation Bombay v. V.A. Ravellow 2001 (1) SCR 1059 1972 (3) SCR 606 – relied on ... 157 – relied on ... 1094 Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab Aizaz & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 (1993) 4 SLR 673 (FB) (12) SCR 13 – relied on ... 1068 – held inapplicable ... 276 Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Excise 2007 (7) SCR 685 ... 1209 & Ors. etc. 1981 (2) SCR 79 Ameer Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data – relied on ... 7 Processing Ltd. 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 634 ... 1155 Ajay Krishan Shinghal & Ors. v. Union of Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay India & Ors. 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 319 ... 979 1960 SCR 460 ... 876

(vii) (ix) (x) Anil Kumar Chakraborty & Anr. v. B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. Custodian & Ors. 1997 M/s. Saraswatipur Tea Company Ltd. & Ors. (3) SCR 51 AIR 1982 SC 1062: 1982 (2) SCC 328 – relied on ... 1004 – relied on ... 1095 Babu v. State of Kerala, 2010 (9) SCR 1039 Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr. – relied on ... 416 (2005) 10 SCC 228 – relied on ... 157 Baburao Shantaram More v. The Bombay Housing Board 1954 SCR 572 ... 545 Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. – relied on ... 548 (1964) 5 SCR 946 – relied on ... 1153 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898 ... 925 Ashok Laxman Sohoni & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 1319 Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors. 2008 (14) SCR 621 – relied on ... 873 – relied on ... 476 Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Others 1990 (3) SCR 649 ... 542 Badri v. State ILR (1963) 2 All 359 ..... 1037 Ashwin S. Mehta v. Custodian 2006 Baldeo Singh v. CIT 1961 (1) SCR 482 (1) SCR 56 ... 1009 – relied on ... 106 Assistant Excise Commissioner & Anr. v. Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Issac Peter & Ors. 1994 (2) SCR 67 Trust v. State of Punjab 1996 (2) SCR 643 ... 1117 – relied on ... 669 Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M. D. Bhagwat Atma Singh Thr. LRs. v. State of Haryana 1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 250 ... 1117 2007 (12) SCR 1120 ... 385 Banda Development Authority,Banda v. Azeez (S.) Basha & Anr. v. The Union of India Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors.(2011) 5 SCC 394 ... 979, etc. 1968 SCR 833 1117 Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa – relied on ... 6 High Court, 1974 (2) SCR 282 – relied on ... 54 (xi) (xii) Basavva v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A. 2002 1996 (3) SCR 500 ... 385 (2) SCR 411 Benara Values Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central – held inapplicable. ... 304 Excise 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 341 Bhavin Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat – relied on ... 1210 2010 (260) ELT 526 (Guj) ... 244 Bhagvan Manaji Marwadi & Ors. v. Hiraji Bhim Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors., Premaji Marwadi AIR 1932 Bom 516 ... 1156 AIR 2006 P & H 195 ... 215 Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, 1950 Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of J & K and Others SCR 459 (1985) 4 SCC 677 – relied on ... 53 – relied on ... 629 Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharahshtra, M. Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors. AIR 2005 (1963) 3 SCR 830 SC 2769: 2005 (2) SCC 481 – relied on ... 418 – relied on ... 1094 Bhupinder Singh v. Jarnail Singh (2006) Bharat Hydro Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. v. 6 SCC 207 ... 244 State of Assam & Anr. 2004 (1) SCR 284 ... 544 Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. v. Kannappa ILR Central Valuation Board & Ors. 2007 1988 KAR 3092 (7) SCR 430 – approved. ... 546, – relied on ... 7 550 Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Bihar School Education Board v. Subhas Express Courier 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 653 ... 1053 Chandra Sinha 1970 (3) SCR 968 – relied on ... 845 Bharti Cellular Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 2010 (12) SCR 725 ... 671 Bindal (A.K.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 163 Bhatia (D.C.) & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. 1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 539 ... 8, 480 – relied on ... 479 (xiii) (xiv) Binny Ltd. (The) v. Their Workmen AIR 1973 Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corpn. of SC 1403: 1974 (3) SCC 152 India, 1995 (2) SCR 482 – relied on ... 1095 – relied on ... 54 Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen & Anr. 1972 (3) Cellular Operators Association of India & SCR 518 Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 222 – relied on ... 1095 – held inapplicable ... 669 Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal 2010 (8) SCR 1036 Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. 2011 – relied on ... 872 (8) SCALE 645 ... 343 Bipin Shantilal Panchal (Dr.) v. State of Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Gujarat (1996) 1 SCC 718 Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. – relied on ... 627 Kulkarni 1992 (3) SCR 158 Biswanath Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera & Ors. – relied on ... 627 2009 (12) SCR 459 Chaganti Satyanarayana and Others v. – relied on ... 476 State of Andhra Pradesh 1986 (2) SCR 1128 Board of High School & Intermediate Education U.P. (The) v. Bagleshwar Prasad 1962 – relied on ... 627 3 SCR 767 ... 846 Chairman J & K State Board Education v. Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain (1955) Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors. 2000 2 SCR 955 (1) SCR 402 ... 846 – relied on ... 53 Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. 2010 British India General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. (6) SCR 291 ... 846 Captain Itbar Singh & Ors. 1960 SCR 426 ... 773 Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Budhan Choudhry & Ors. v. State of Bihar C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. 1997 (3) 1955 SCR 1045 Suppl. SCR 63 ... 8 – relied on ... 6 (xv) (xvi) Chandrabhai K. Bhoir and Others v. Krishna Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Arjun Bhoir and Others 2008 (15) SCR 652 Acquisition Officer, Poona 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531 ... 385 – relied on ... 669 – relied on ... 738 Chandrakantaben (Smt.) v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi 1989 (2) SCR 232 ... 480 Chinnama George & Ors. v. N. K. Raju & Anr. 2000 (4) SCC 130 Chandran alias Manichan alias Maniyan & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161 – Partly overruled ... 771 – relied on ... 870 Chinta Lingam & Ors. v. The Govt. of India & Ors. 1971 (2) SCR 871 Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka 2007 (2) SCR 630 – relied on ... 476 – relied on ... 416 Chiranjitlal v. Union of India' 1950 SCR ..... 545 Chandu Lal v. The Management of M/s. Pan Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai American World Airways Inc. AIR 1985 SC 2005 (10) SCC 760 ... 547 1128: 1985 (2) SCC 727 Citation Infowares Ltd. v. Equinox Corporation – relied on ... 1095 2009 (6) SCR 737 Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital, – held inapplicable. ... 304 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 337 Coal India Limited and Anr. v. Ujjal Transport – relied on ... 53 Agency and Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 117 ... 1209 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Dunlop Central Electricity Regulatory Commission India Ltd. 1985 (2) SCR 190 and Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 680 – relied on ... 1210 – relied on ... 1209 Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu Hongo India Private Limited (2009) 5 SCC 791 1979 (1) SCR 26 – relied on ... 1209 – relied on ... 669 Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise v. Punjab Fibres Ltd. 2008 (2) SCR 861 – relied on ... 1209 (xvii) (xviii) Commissioner of Police Delhi v. Narendra Dayaram Asanand Gursahani v. State of Singh 2006 (3) SCR 872 Maharashtra 1984 (2) SCR 703 – relied on ... 1093 – relied on ... 508 Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Deep Chand v. State of U.P. 1959 (2) Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department Suppl. SCR 8 ... 544 and Ors. 2008 (5) SCR 1108 ... 1209 Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Crawford Bayley & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India Ors. 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 496 ... 826 & Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 240 Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal – relied on ... 543 Bhan AIR 1960 SC 806 D.A.V. College, etc.etc. v. State of Punjab – relied on ... 1092 & Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 269 Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram – relied on ... 6 Sharma 2004 (6) SCC 533 ... 739 Dagdu and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1977 Delhi Science Forum and Others v. Union (3) SCR 636 of India 1996 (2) SCR 767 – relied on ... 418 – held inapplicable ... 669 Daman Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State 1985 (3) SCR 580 ... 7 Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd Yousuf Miya & Ors1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 941 Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCR 678 – relied on ... 1093 – relied on ... 718 Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 346 ... 1008 Damyanti Naranga (Smt.) v. The Union of India & Ors. 1971 (3) SCR 840 ... 6 Dhanna Mal v. Rai Bahadur Lala Moti Sagar AIR 1927 P.C. 102 ... 195 Dave (N.H.), Inspector of Customs v. Mohd. Akhtar Hussain Ibrahim Iqbal Kadar Amad – relied on ... 189 Wagher (Bhatt) & Ors. 1984 (15) ELT 353 (Guj.) ... 244 Dhanoa (S.S.) v. Municipal Corporation Delhi & Ors., 1981 (3) SCR 864 ... 478 (xix) (xx) Dharam Dutt & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Employees' State Insurance Corpn. & 1964 SCR 885 ... 7 Ors. v. Jardine Henderson Staff Association & Ors. 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 27 ... 1009 Dhoundial (N.C.) v. Union of India & Ors. 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 674 Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo (Civil Appeal No.7037 of 2004) – relied on ... 868 – relied on ... 53 Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. 1968 SCR 662 ..... 547 F.D.C. Limited v. Federation of Medical Dilip K. Basu v. State of W.B. & Ors, 1997 (3) Representatives Association India & Ors. Suppl. SCR 219 AIR 2003 Bom 371 ... 1155 – relied on ... 868 Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 N.K. Modi 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 820 – relied on ... 627 – relied on ... 52 Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors. 1994 (1) SCR 445 ... 244 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 121 Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. – relied on ... 478 Nikunja Bihari Patnaik 1996 (1) Suppl. Food Corporation of India and Another v. SCR 314 Dayal Singh 1991 PLJ 425 ... 215 – relied on ... 1095 Food Corporation of India v. Municipal Dwarkadas Marfatia (M/s) v. Bombay Port Committee, Jalalabad & Anr., AIR 1999 Trust 1989 (3) SCC 293 ... 545 SC 2573 – relied on ... 548 – relied on ... 479 Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Maharashtra 1977 (3) SCR 513 Workmen AIR 1971 SC 2414 – relied on ... 869 – relied on ... 1094 Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (M/s.), Fruit & Vegetable Merchants Union v. etc. etc. v. Secretary, Revenue Department, Delhi Improvement Trust, 1957 SCR 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., etc. – relied on ... 481 etc. AIR 1999 SC 1734 ... 479 (xxi) (xxii) Gajadhar Prasad & Ors. v. Babu Bhakta Ratan Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & Ors. 1974 (1) SCR 372 ... 1008 & Ors. v. Manju Jain & Ors., 2010 (10) SCR 134 Ganpat v. State of Haryana and Others, 2010 (12) SCR 400 – relied on ... 476 – relied on ... 416 Gujarat Ginning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Motilal Hirabhai Spinning & Manuacturing Co. Gauri Shanker Sharma etc. v. State of U.P. Ltd. AIR 1936 PC 77 ... 195 etc., 1990 SCR 29 – relied on ... 189 – relied on ... 869 Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Ors. v. Andhra George (P.V.) v. State of Kerala 2007 Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1) SCR 1198 ... 671 and Anr. (1959) Supp 1 SCR 319 ... 1148 Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif and Ors. 1968 SCR 862 ... 1156 Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90 ... 871 Government of A.P. v. H.E.H. The Nizam, Hyderabad, 1996 (3) SCR 772 Hadi Raja (Mohd.) v. State of Bihar & Anr., 1998 (3) SCR 22 ... 478 – relied on ... 481 Har Shankar & Ors. v. The Deputy Excise Government of A.P. v. M/s Anabeshahi Wine & Taxation Commissioner & Others 1975 (3) & Distilleries Pvt. Ltd (1988) 2 SCC 25 SCR 254 – relied on ... 669 – relied on ... 663 Government of Haryana v. Haryana Breweries Harbilas Rai Bansal v. State of Punjab & Anr. Ltd. & Anr. 2002 (1) SCR 942 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 178 ... 6 – relied on ... 102 Harji Mal and Anr. v. Devi Ditta Mal and Ors. Govind Ramji Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra AIR (1924) Lah 107 1990 (1) SCR 855 – approved ... 1150 – relied on ... 869 Harman Singh & Ors. v. Regional Transport Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel and Towers Authority, Calcutta Region & Ors. Employees and Workers Union v. Srinivasa 1954 SCR 371 ... 7 Resorts Limited & Ors 2009 (3) SCR 668 – relied on ... 7 (xxiii) (xxiv) Hashim (K.) v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004 (6) Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D.Kanan 2006 Suppl. SCR 1 (8) Suppl. SCR 1027 – relied on ... 418, – relied on ... 1095 870 Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Collector of Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Central Excise, Baroda (2007) 13 SCC 803 ... 671 Harijan and Others (2009) 16 SCC 517 Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India 1999 (5) – relied on ... 215 Suppl. SCR 229 ... 7 Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Shapur Chenai and Ors. 2005 (3) Suppl. Union of India 2007 (13) SCR 173 SCR 388 ... 826, 1119 – relied on ... 1210 Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David State of Kerala & Ors., 1997 (3) SCR 919 ... 478 (2011) 5 SCC 509 – relied on ... 924 Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1983 (3) SCR 130 ... 544 Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai (Dead) by LRs. 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 213 ... 670 Howrah Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2003 (6) Ismail (M.) Faruqui (Dr.) etc. v. Union of India Suppl. SCR 1212 ... 14 & Ors., 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra – relied on ... 481 1974 (3) SCR 31 Jain Ink Mfg. Co. v. LIC Prithipal Singh v. – relied on ... 1209 Satpal Singh (Dead) thr. its Lrs. 2009 (16) SCR 736 Husain Umar Kochra (Mohd.) etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Another etc., 1969 – relied on ... 546 (3) SCR 130 Jall (R.C.) Parsi v. Union of India 1962 – relied on ... 418 Suppl. SCR 436 ... 100 ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur 2007 (3) Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari 1969 SCR 253 SCR 134 – relied on ... 1052 – relied on ... 1092 (xxv) (xxvi) Jayamohan (K.) v. State of Kerala & Anr., Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 201 ... 478 1979 (2) SCR 717 Jayaram Vithoba & Anr. v. The State of – relied on ... 1037 Bombay, 1955 SCR 1049 Kanak Ram & Ors. v. Chanan Singh & Ors. – relied on ... 869 (2007) 146 PLR 498 ... 215 Jaywant P.Sankpal v. Suman Gholap & Ors. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors. v. Factory 2010 (9) SCR 102 Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 8 – relied on ... 869 – relied on ... 1094 Jermons (J.) v. Aliammal & Ors 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 467 Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana 2008 (10) SCR 367 ... 385 – relied on ... 476 Karim (S.M.) v. Mst. Bibi Sakina AIR Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. National 1964 SC 1254 ... 215 Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors. 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 555 Karunanidhi (M.) v. Union of India and Anr. – relied on ... 543 1979 (3) SCR 254 ... 544 Kalburqi (P. K.) v. State of Karnataka (2005) Kashi Nath (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Jaganath 12 SCC 489 ... 1117 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 202 – relied on ... 476 Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi 2011 SCR 216 Kashirao Panduji v. Ramchandra Balaji AIR – relied on ... 476 (35) 1948 Nag 362 ... 1153 Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v. of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc. & T. Srinivas AIR 2004 SC 4127 Ors. AIR 1987 SC 229: 1987 (1) SCC 146 – relied on ... 1093 – relied on ... 1095 Khatri and Others (II) v. State of Bihar and Kamla Bakshi v. Khairati Lal 2000 Others 1981 (2) SCR 408 (2) SCR 773 ... 671 – relied on ... 629 (xxvii) (xxviii) Khub Chand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Kusheshwar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Ors. (1967) 1 SCR 120 ... 979 Coal Ltd. & Ors.1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 579 Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu 1992 (1) SCR 686 – relied on ... 1092 – relied on ... 54 Lal Chand v. Union of India 2009 (13) Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State SCR 622 ... 385 Insurance Corpn. 2007 (6) SCR 139 Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India 1973 – relied on ... 52 (3) SCC 862 Koppula Jagdish alias Jagdish v. State of – relied on ... 508 A.P. (2005) 12 SCC 425 ... 871 Laxman Das v. Deoji Mal & Ors. AIR Kraipak (A.K.) v. Union of India 1970 2003 Rajasthan 74 ... 1155 (1) SCR 457 Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial – relied on ... 1006 Institute, 1995 (3) SCR 174 Krishna Distt. Coop. Mktg. Society Ltd. – relied on ... 53 Vijayawada v. N.V. Purnachandra Rao & Ors. 1987 (3) SCR 728 ... 544 Laxmipat Choraria & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1968 SCR 624 Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 200 – relied on ... 870 – relied on ... 1093 Leelabai Gajanan Pansare & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., Krishnan v. State represented by Inspector of 2008 (12 ) SCR 248 Police (2008) 15 SCC 430 – relied on ... 480 – relied on ... 923 Lok Pal Singh v. State of M.P. AIR Kunhay Ahmed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & 1985 SC 891 ... 871 Anr. 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 ... 671 Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and 1983 (3) SCR 413 ... 925 Anr. 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 538 ... 1158 Madan Pal v. State of Haryana (2004) Kunwar Pal Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. State 13 SCC 508 ... 871 of U.P. & Ors., 2007 (4) SCR 409 ... 979 (xxix) (xxx) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v. Mannan (Mohd.) @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317 1988 (2) SCR 930 – relied on ... 924, – relied on ... 157 925 Madhu Limaye and Others 1969 (3) SCR 154 Manoj v. State of M.P. 1999 (2) SCR 402 – relied on ... 628 – relied on ... 628 Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abilash May George v. Special Tahsildar & Ors. 2010 Shiksha Prasar Samiti 1998 (9) SCC 236 ... 846 (7) SCR 204 ... 979 Maharaj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited v. & Ors. 1977 (1) SCR 1072 Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs 2011(1) SCR 741 ... 671 – relied on ... 481 Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Commissioner, H.P. 1996 (9) Suppl. Company Limited & Anr. v. Datar SCR 258 Switchgear Limited & Ors. 2010 (12) SCR 551 – relied on ... 108 – relied on ... 157 Mosammat Bibi Sayeeda & Ors., etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors., etc., 1996 (1) Suppl. Mallimath (V.S.) v. Union of India & Anr. 2001 SCR 799 ... 14 (2) SCR 567 – relied on ... 478 Muniappan (C.) & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2010 (10) SCR 262 Mangu Ram v. MCD 1976 (2) SCR 260 – relied on ... 925 – relied on ... 1209 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim AIR Ors. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 2002 SC 2920 & Anr. 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 50 – relied on ... 873 – relied on ... 481 Manjula (A.) Bhashini and Ors. v. Managing Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Director, Andhra Pradesh Women's Industrial Development and Investment Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd. & Company (P) Limited 1996 (5) Suppl. Anr. 2009 (10) SCR 634 ... 9 SCR 551 ... 1117 (xxxi) (xxxii) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad v. P.N. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Murthy & Ors. 1987 (2) SCR 107 Maharashtra 2000 (3) Suppl. SCR 104 – relied on ... 481 – relied on ... 418 Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Narendra Kumar v. Yarenissa 1998 Beig 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 197 ... 1117 (9) SCC 202 ... 771 Munshi Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1973 Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1) SCR 973 ... 826 2011 (5) SCR 729 Munshi Singh Gautam (D) & Ors. v. State of – relied on ... 869 M.P. 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 1092 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing – relied on ... 869 Federation of India Ltd. & Anr. v. Union Munshi Singh v. Union of India 1973 of India & Ors. 2003 (3) SCR 1 ... 8 (1) SCR 973 ... 1118 National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Mustaq Ahmed Mohammed Isak and Shri Kishan Bhageria & Ors. 1988 Supp. others v. State of Maharashtra (2009) SCC 82 ... 544, 7 SCC 480 547 – relied on ... 627 National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh 2007 (2) SCR 184 Nadir Khan v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1975 Suppl. SCR 489 – relied on ... 670 – relied on ... 869 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 (1) SCC 626 ... 772 Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 Suppl. SCR 123 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 456 ... 773 – relied on ... 157 Nayak (R.S.) v. A.R. Antulay 1984 (2) SCR 495 Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (3) SCR 939 – relied on ... 478 – relied on ... 872 Nelson Motis v. Union of India & Anr. 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 325 Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and another 1978 (3) SCR 608 – relied on ... 1092 – held inapplicable ... 625 (xxxiii) (xxxiv) New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram Pashupati Nath Sukul v. Nem Chandra Jain & Anr. 1976 Suppl. SCR 87 ... 542 & Ors. 1984 (1) SCR 939 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville – relied on ... 478 Wadia 2007 (13) SCR 598 ... 551 Patel Naranbhai Marghabhai v. Dhulabhai NTPC Limited v. Mahesh Dutta (2009) Galbabhai 1992 (3) SCR 384 8 SCC 339 ... 1117 – relied on ... 1209 NTPC v. Singer 1992 (3) SCR 106 ... 305 Patel Roadways Limited v. Birla Yamaha Ltd., ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel 2000 (2) SCR 665 (2008) 4 SCC 745 ... 383 – relied on ... 52 Onkar Lal Bajaj etc. etc. v. Union of India & Paul (M.) Anthony (Capt.) v. Bharat Gold Mines Anr. etc. etc. 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 605 Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416 – relied on ... 9 – relied on ... 1092 Padma (C.) v. Deputy Secretary to the Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Manorama Government of Tamil Nadu 1996 (9) Suppl. Sirsi, 2004 (1) SCR 266 SCR 158 ... 1117 – relied on ... 1095 Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. v. N. Balakrishnan 2007 (6) SCR 873 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 2419 – relied on ... 1094 – relied on ... 869 Pandurangan (K.) etc. v. S.S.R. Velusamy & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 3318 Periasami (K.) v. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 1994 (4) SCC 180 ... 739 – relied on ... 869 Persis Kothawala v. LIC 2004 (4) BCR 610 ... 551 Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1976 (1) SCR 219 Prabhu (N.G.) v. Chief Justice, Kerala High Court 1973 (2) Lab. IC 1399 ... 508 – relied on ... 663 Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay AIR Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma v. State of 1956 SC 51 ... 871 Uttarakhand 2010 (11) SCR 1064 – relied on ... 924 (xxxv) (xxxvi) Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Rajiv Kapoor & Ors. v. State of Haryana Chemical Biology & Ors. 2002 (3) SCR 100 & Ors. 2000 (2) SCR 629 – relied on ... 479 – relied on ... 1068 Prem Nath Motors Ltd. v. Anurag Mittal AIR Ram Chandra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 SC 569 AIR 1957 SC 381 – relied on ... 479 – relied on ... 873 Proprietor, Jabalpur Tractors v. Sedmal Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar Jainrain and Anr. 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 561 & Ors. 1959 SCR 279 – relied on ... 52 – relied on ... 6 Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Ram Narain v. The Simla Banking and Ram Sajivan 2007 (5) SCR 684 Industrial Co. Ltd. 1956 SCR 603 – relied on ... 1094 – relied on ... 53 Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay 1999 (2) Suppl. Republic of India 2011 (1) SCR 929 SCR 576 – relied on ... 925 – relied on ... 508 Radhabai Bhaskar Sakharam v. Anant Pandurang Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Pandit and Anr. AIR (1922) Bom 345 ... 1153 Narain Inter College & Ors.1987 (2) SCR 805 Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors. v. – relied on ... 476 State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2011) Ram Tawekya Sharma v. State of Bihar & 5 SCC 553 ... 826 Ors. 2008 (12) SCR 452 Raghubar Dayal Jai Prakash (M/s.) v. – relied on ... 1094 The Union of India & Anr. 1962 SCR 547 ... 6 Rama Nand & Ors. v. The State of Himachal Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana 1980 (3) Pradesh 1981 (2) SCR 444 SCR 277 – relied on ... 873 – relied on ... 869 Rajesh D. Darbar v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 273 ... 1009 (xxxvii) (xxxviii) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975 (3) Airport Authority of India & Ors. 1979 SCR 453 (3) SCR 1014 ... 1009 – relied on ... 418 – relied on ... 478 Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Ramanathan (M.) Pillai v. State of Kerala Authority of India & Ors. 2006 (8) Suppl. & Anr. 1974 (1) SCR 515 ... 9 SCR 398 Ramanjini (B.) & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. – relied on ... 7 2002 (3) SCR 506 Ritu Devi v. New Delhi Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000 – relied on ... 845 (3) SCR 741 ... 773 Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Rohlua (V.L.) v. Deputy Commissioner, Aijal, Bengal AIR 1970 SC 940 ... 244 District Mizo (1970) 2 SCC 908 ... 628 Rameshswar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & of Rajasthan 1952 SCR 377 Ors. 2008 (17) SCR 1476 – relied on ... 870 – relied on ... 1094 Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Import 1981 (1) SCR 899 ... 1008 Ors. 2010 (1) SCR 991 Ramji Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR – relied on ... 869 2001 SC 3853 ... 871 Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur & Ors. v. State Rampal Pithwa Rahidas and Others v. State of of Karnataka, AIR 2004 SC 4148 Maharashtra, 1994 (2) SCR 179 – relied on ... 870 – relied on ... 418 Sahadevan @ Sagadevan v. State Rep. by Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra,: AIR Inspector of Police, Chennai AIR 2003 SC 215 1999 SC 1969 : (1999 Cri LJ 2889) – relied on ... 873 – relied on ... 418 Sahara India and Ors. v. M.C. Aggawal HUF Rampratap Jaidayal v. Dominion of India AIR 2007 (2) SCR 1037 1953 Bom 170 ... 545 – distinguished ... 1153 – relied on ... 548 (xxxix) (xl) Samarias Trading Co. (P) Ltd. v. S. Samuel Sarwan Singh s/o Rattan Singh v. State of 1985 (2) SCR 24 Punjab 1957 SCR 953 – relied on ... 1210 – relied on ... 418, 870 Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. (M/s) v. Union of India & Ors 2010 (2) SCR 352 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. A. Gopalan AIR 1999 SC 1514: 1997 – relied on ... 476 (11) SCC 239 Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar 2009 – relied on ... 1093 (10) SCR 112 ... 871 Sesa Industries Limited v. Krishna H. Bajaj Sanjay Dutt v. State (1994) 5 SCC 410 & Ors. 2011 (3) SCR 317 ... 1009 – relied on ... 627 Sethi (M.L.) v. R.P. Kapur 1967 SCR 520 Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service – relied on ... 1037 Commission 2007 (1) SCR 235 ... 345 Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Sant Lal Gupta & Ors v. Modern Co-operative 2001 (1) Suppl. SCR 573 ... 385 Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. JT 2010 (11) SC 273 Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer 1956 SCR 199 – relied on ... 13 – relied on ... 873 Saptawna v. The State of Assam AIR (1971) SC ... 628 Shangrila Food Products Ltd. and Anr. v. L.I.C. and Anr. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 279 ... 551 Saraswat Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2006 (4) Suppl. Shankarrayya v. United Insurance Co. Ltd. SCR 567 1998 (3) SCC 140 ... 773 – relied on ... 480 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1985 (1) SCR 88 Sarathy (P.) v. State Bank of India 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 402 – relied on ... 923 – relied on ... 54 Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra 1971 (1) SCR 617 – relied on ... 418 (xli) (xlii) Shivakumar (K.V.) & Anr. v. Appropriate Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Authority & Ors. 2000 (1) SCR 991 Ltd. 2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 324 – relied on ... 481 – relied on ... 52 Shri Sarwan Singh and another v. Shri Kasturi South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Lal 1977 (2) SCR 421 ... 542 Span Kumar Mitra & Ors. 2006 (2) SCR 30 Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar – relied on ... 1093 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 533 ... 1119 Southern Roadways Ltd., Madurai v. Shyam Telelink Limited v. Union of India 2010 S.M. Krishnan 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 410 (12) SCR 927 ... 670 – relied on ... 479 Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (NCT of Delhi) 2010 (4) SCR 103 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 158 ... 1117 – relied on ... 416 State Bank of India & Anr. v. Bela Bagchi & Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das 1984 Ors. 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1084 (2) SCR 344 – relied on ... 1094 – relied on ... 1210 State Bank of India & Ors. v. R.B. Sharma Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2007 AIR 2004 SC 4144 (13) SCR 952 – relied on ... 1093 – relied on ... 1208 State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy & Ors, Sita Ram Bhandar Society v. Govt. of NCT 1998 (3) SCR 1088 ... 871 of Delhi 2009 (14) SCR 507 ... 1117 State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. P. Sagar Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri v. State of Jharkhand, 1968 SCR 565 ... 7 2007 (11) SCR 997 State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Allabaksh – relied on ... 418 (2000) 10 SCC 177 Sivasuriyan v. Thangavelu 2004 (13) SCC 795 – relied on ... 1092 – relied on ... 716 State of Bihar (The) v. Ram Naresh Pandey and another 1957 SCR 279 – relied on ... 629 (xliii) (xliv) State of Bihar (The) v. The Union of India State of Karnataka v. Vishwa Bharathi House & Anr., 1970 (2) SCR 522 ... 478 Building Co-operative Society and Others 2003 (1) SCR 397 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara 1951 SCR 682: 53 Bom. LR 982 (SC) ... 545 – relied on ... 52, 53, 54 State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jethabhai, State of Kerala & Anr. v. The Gawalior 1951 SCR 51 Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. etc. – relied on ... 53 1974 (1) SCR 671 ... 9 State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. 2007 State of M.P. & Ors. v. KCT Drinks Ltd. 2003 (3) SCR 507 (2) SCR 574 – relied on ... 416 – relied on ... 669 State of Goa v. Western Builders 2006 (3) State of M.P. & Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors. Suppl. SCR 288 ... 1209 1987 (1) SCR 1 ... 1009 State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Raman Lal Keshav State of M.P.v. Rustam and Others 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 221 Lal Soni & Ors. 1983 (2) SCR 287 ..... 8 – relied on ... 627 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh and Another, 2011 (5) SCR 1 – relied on ... 157 – relied on ... 417 State of Karnataka & Anr. v. All India Manufacturers Organization & Ors. 2006 (1) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustom and Suppl. SCR 86 Others 1995 (1) SCR 897 – relied on ... 9 – relied on ... 627 State of Karnataka & Anr. v. T. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Venkataramanappa 1996 (6) Suppl. Trivedi & Ors., 1995 (1) Suppl. SCR 44 SCR 607 – relied on ... 869 – relied on ... 1092 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Ors. 2008 (12) SCR 1083 ... 544 (xlv) (xlvi) State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh 1980 Varma (Mrs) 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 422 (1) SCR 1071 ... 1119 – relied on ... 627 State of Punjab v. Gurmej Singh 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 427 State of Maharashtra v. M/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. 2010 (4) SCR 46 – relied on ... 716 – relied on ... 476 State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Sripal Jain 1964 SCR 742 State of Maharashtra v. SK. Bannu and Shankar 1981 (1) SCR 694 – relied on ... 478 – relied on ... 1037 State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena & Ors. 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 68 State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 738 ... 671 – relied on ... 1092 State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty State of Rajasthan v. Fateh Chand Soni 2011 (2) SCR 704 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 559 – distinguished ... 1068 – relied on ... 508 State of Orissa and Others v. Harinarayan State of T.N. & Anr. v. Mahalakshmi Ammal & Jaiswal and Others 1972 (3) SCR 784 Ors. 1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 451 ... 979 – relied on ... 663 State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors. (2011) 8 SCALE 474 State of Punjab & Anr. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. & Ors. 2003 (5) Suppl. – relied on ... 7, 9 SCR 930 State of Tamil Nadu v. G.N. Venkataswamy, – relied on ... 663 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 322 State of Punjab & Anr. v. Dr. Viney Kumar – relied on ... 54 Khullar & Ors. 2010 (13) SCR 733 State of U.P. (The) v. Mohd. Naim 1964 – relied on ... 1068 SCR 363 State of Punjab & Ors. v. Raja Ram & Ors. – relied on ... 869 1981 (2) SCR 712 ... 478, 825 State of U.P. v. Delhi Cloth Mills 1990 (2) Suppl. SCR 168 ... 100 (xlvii) (xlviii) State of U.P. v. Devi Dayal Singh 2000 (1) State represented by Inspector of Police, SCR 1205 Tamil Nadu v. Sait alias Krishnakumar, 2008 – held inapplicable ... 669 (14) SCR 120 – relied on ... 870 State of U.P. v. Modi Distillery & Ors. 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 119 State through CBI v. Mohd. Ashraft Bhat and – relied on ... 102 Anr. 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 300 – held inapplicable. ... 106 – relied on ... 627 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagram and Others, State through Narcotics Control Bureau v. 2008 (2) SCR 721 Kulwant Singh 2003 (1) SCR 995 ... 478 – relied on ... 416 Subh Ram v. State of Haryana 2009 (15) SCR 287 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others, 2011 (4) SCR 1176 – relied on ... 738 – relied on ... 417 Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab 2001 (2) SCR 644 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajvir (2007) 15 SCC 545 – relied on ... 873 – held inapplicable. ... 277 Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 7 SCC 125 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sahrunnisa & Anr. 2009 (10) SCR 237 – relied on ... 925 – held inapplicable ... 276 Sudhir S. Mehta & Ors. v. Custodian & Anr. 2008 (8) SCR 1099 ... 1008 State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. 2004 (1) SCR 564 ... 544 Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar v. Bank of India AIR 1997 SC 2249: 1997 (6) SCC 271 – relied on ... 546 – relied on ... 1094 State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors. etc. etc., 2000 (2) Suppl. Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram SCR 712 Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr.1975 (3) SCR 619 – relied on ... 873 – relied on ... 478 (xlix) (l) Sukhram v. State of Madhya Pradesh Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh AIR 1989 SC 772 ... 871 Bengali v. State of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 340 Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors. 2010 – relied on ... 869 (9) SCR 476 ... 979 Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1994 – relied on ... 481 (1) Suppl. SCR 483 Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. ONGC – relied on ... 418, 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR186 ... 305 870 Sundram Finance Ltd. v. State of Kerala Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava 1966 SCR 828 ... 1053 & Anr. 2005 (2) SCR 131 Sunil Gupta v. Union of India 2000 (118) – relied on ... 157 ELT 8 P&H ... 244 Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 1981 Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and (2) SCR 533 ... 1006 Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of (15) SCR 452 Rajasthan 2008 (2) SCR 521 ... 1117 – relied on ... 417 Syed and Company & Ors. v. State of Jammu Sunil Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Kashmir & Ors. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 422 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 767 – relied on ... 476 – relied on ... 872 Syed Hasan Rasul Numa & Ors. v. Union of Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. v. Tapan India & Ors. 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 165 ... 979 Kumar Singh 2003 (3) SCR 485 ... 244 Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd & Ors. v. State Supreme Court Employees' Welfare of U.P. & Ors. 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 623 Association v. Union of India & Anr. – relied on ... 102 1989 (3) SCR 488 ... 671 Talson Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. State of Surendra Koli v. State of UP & Ors. 2011 (2) Maharashtra & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 186 ... 979 SCR 939 Tarsen Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 (1) – relied on ... 925 Suppl. SCR 452 – relied on ... 508 (li) (lii) Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. Union of India v. A. Sanyasi Rao and others (The) v. The State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1996 (2) SCR 570 1965 SC 40 ... 7 – relied on ... 106 Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen 1964 Union of India v. Mukesh Hans (2004) SCR 555 6 SCC 14 ... 826, – relied on ... 1092 1119 Secy., Thirumurugan Coop. Agricultural Credit Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal Society v. Ma. Lalitha 2003 (6) Suppl. 2008 (14) SCR 179 ... 244 SCR 659 Union of India v. Padam Narian Aggarwal – relied on ... 52 2008 (231) ELT 397(SC) ... 244 Tika Ramji (Ch.) and Ors. etc. v. The State of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 1956 SCR 393 ... 544 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 619 Trojan & Co. (M/s.) v. RM N.N. Nagappa Chettiar – relied on ... 1208 1953 SCR 780 Union of India v. Pramod Gupta 2005 (3) – relied on ... 476 Suppl. SCR 48 Tulsi Das and Ors. v. Government of A.P. & – relied on ... 670 Ors. AIR 2003 SC 43 ... 8 Union of India v. Pushpa Rani 2008 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. (11) SCR 440 Suresh Chand Sharma 2010 (7) SCR 239 – relied on ... 508 – relied on ... 1095 Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Madras Bar Association, 2010 (6) SCR 857 Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453 ... 628 – relied on ... 53 Union of India & Ors. v. Anand Kumar Pandey Union of India v. S.S. Ranade 1995 (3) SCR 773 & Ors. 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 750 – relied on ... 508 – relied on ... 845 Union of India v. Tata Teleservices (Mahrashtra) Union of India & Ors. v. Naman Singh Ltd. 2007 (9) SCR 285 Shekhawat 2008 (5) SCR 137 – held inapplicable ... 669 – relied on ... 1094 (liii) (liv) Union of India v. Thamisharasi and Others Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel (1995) 4 SCC 190 ... 628 1964 SCR 129 Union of India v. V.K. Sirothia 2008 – relied on ... 1209 (9) SCC 283 Vijay Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of – relied on ... 508 Karnataka and Ors. 1990 (1) SCR 614 ... 544 Union of Public Service Commission v. Vinay Rampal (Dr.) v. State of J & K & Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors. 1999 (3) SCR 649 Ors. (1984) 1 SCC 160 – relied on ... 1068 – relied on ... 1068 Union Public Service Commission v. Jagannath Vivek Automobiles Ltd. v. Indian Inc. (2009) Mishra 2009 (9) SCC 237 ... 846 17 SCC 657 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhushan – relied on ... 479 Sachdeva 2002 (1) SCR 352 ... 773 Wakkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras 1957 3 SCC 306 SCR 981 – relied on ... 924 – relied on ... 872 Wander Ltd. And Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 ... 1008 Vasundara (K.) Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 376 ... 385 Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. 1955 SCR 1140 ... 871 Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshithulu & Ors., 1991 Yadav (B.S.) & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Supp. (2) SCC 228: 1991 (2) SCR 531 Ors. 1981 SCR 1024 ... 8 – relied on ... 481 Yadav (J.S.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 570 ... 14 Venture Global Engg. v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. 2008 (1) SCR 501 Yusuf (SK.) v. State of West Bengal AIR – held inapplicable. ... 304 2011 SC 2283 – relied on ... 924 Vidya (K.) Sagar v. State of U.P. and Others (2005) 5 SCC 581 ... 671 Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 1042 ... 545 1178

1177 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1186

1185 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1204

1203 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1228

1227 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1244 SUBJECT-INDEX (Also see under: Service law) Chief General Manager, Calcutta ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Telephones District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Criminal justice. Limited and Ors. v. Surendra Nath Pandey (See under: Penal Code, 1860; and and Ors. .... 840 Constitution of India, 1950)...... 862 (3) Policy decision - Applicability of doctrine of ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: estoppel - Held: State, being a continuing body (1) Doctrine of proportionality - Applicability of - can be stopped from changing its stand in a given To civil disputes governed by Code of Civil case, but where after holding enquiry it came to Procedure - Held: Is not necessary - The Code is the conclusion that the action was not in conformity comprehensive and exhaustive in respect of the with law, the doctrine of estoppel would not apply matters provided therein - Parties must abide by - Thus, unless the act done by the previous the procedure prescribed therein which is Government is found to be contrary to the statutory extremely rational, reasonable and elaborate - provisions, unreasonable or against policy, State Where the Code is silent, courts act according to should not change its stand merely because the justice, equity and good conscience - If the trial other political party has come into power - court commits illegality or irregularity in exercise Estoppel - Doctrines. of its judicial discretion, such order is always (Also see under: Andhra Pradesh Mutually amenable to correction by a higher court in appeal Aided Co-operative Societies (Amendment) or revision or by High Court in its supervisory Act, 2006 and Constitution of India, 1950) jurisdiction. (Also see under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. .... 1 Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. M/s. M.S.S. Food Products .... 1141 ADVERSE POSSESSION: (i) Ownership - Claim for, by way of adverse (2) Natural Justice - Purpose of - Held: The possession - No Public Undertaking, Government purpose of rules of natural justice is to ensure that Department, much less the Police Department, the order causing civil consequences is not should be permitted to perfect the title of the land passed arbitrarily - It is not that in every case or building by invoking the provisions of adverse there must be an opportunity of oral hearing - Court possession and grab the property of its own can interfere with a decision, if it is so absurd that citizens - In the instant case, the suit was filed by no reasonable authority could have taken such a State Government through the Superintendent of decision - Doctrines/Principles - Wednesbury Police seeking right of ownership by adverse Principle. possession - Suit was dismissed by courts below 1243 - It is unfortunate that the Superintendent of Police 1245 1246 made repeated attempts to grab the property of operative principles which mandate ensuring the true owner by filing repeated appeals before democratic member control and autonomy and different forums claiming right of ownership by way independence in the manner of functioning of co- of adverse possession - Costs to be paid by the operatives - Restrictions imposed by the 2006 State Government for filing frivolous petition and Amendment Act, with retrospective effect, unnecessarily wasting the time of the court and extending over a decade and importing the fiction demonstrating its evil design of grabbing the that all the dairy/milk co-operative societies shall properties of lawful owners in a clandestine be deemed to have been excluded from the manner - Need for legislation - Costs. provisions of the 1995 Act and the societies would be deemed to have been registered under the (ii) Historical background of adverse possession 1964 Act, without giving any option to such - Discussed. societies suggest the violation of Art. 19(1)(c) and (Also see under: Evidence). are not saved by clause (4) of Art. 19 - It is arbitrary State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. .... 211 and violative of Art. 14 - Order of High Court holding the 2006 Amendment Act as ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES unconstitutional, upheld - Andhra Pradesh Mutually ACT, 1964: Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 - Andhra (See under: Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (Also see under: Constitution of India, Act, 2006) .... 1 1950; and Administrative Law) ANDHRA PRADESH MUTUALLY AIDED CO- A.P. Dairy Development Corporation OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995: Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. .... 1 (See under: Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies (Amendment) APPEAL: Act, 2006). .... 1 (1) Appeal against acquittal - Interference in appeal against acquittal - Legal position - Discussed. ANDHRA PRADESH MUTUALLY AIDED CO- (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860; Code OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and Evidence 2006: Act, 1872) Exclusion of milk dairy co-operative societies from Mrinal Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura .... 411 the societies covered by the 1995 Act - Such dairies to be deemed to have been registered (2) Liberty granted while disposing of the appeal under the 1964 Act - Constitutional validity of the - Scope of - Held: While dismissing the appeal, 2006 Amendment Act - Held: By the amendment express liberty was granted by Supreme Court to Act, the extensive control of co-operative societies the appellant that all contentions raised before it by the Registrar under the 1964 Act became could be urged before the Tribunal - Therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the co- 1247 1248 appellant could urge before the Tribunal all the rightly rejected by lower courts - Both the courts contentions including the contention that the below concurrently so held which is well founded definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue as given in and is not liable to be interfered with - Code of the license could not be challenged by the licensee Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.167(2) - Constitution before the Tribunal and will include all items of of India, 1950 - Art. 22(2) - Maharashtra Control revenue mentioned in the definition of Adjusted of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - s. 21. Gross Revenue in the license - Telecom Regulatory (ii) Grant of bail - Consideration for - Held: Authority of India Act, 1997. Considerations for grant of bail at the stage of (Also see under: Telecom Regulatory investigation and after the charge-sheet is filed Authority of India Act, 1997) are different - Once a person is arrested and is Union of India and Anr. v. Association of in judicial custody, the prayer for bail will have to Unified Telecom Service Providers of be considered on merits - Prayer for bail cannot India and Ors. .... 657 be automatically granted on establishing that there was procedural breach irrespective of the merits ARBITRATION: of matter. Arbitral Tribunal - Applicable law - Held: While the (Also see under: Code of Criminal proper law is the law which governs the agreement Procedure, 1973; and Constitution of itself, in the absence of any other stipulation in India, 1950) the arbitration clause as to which law would apply in respect of the arbitral proceedings, it is the law Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State governing the contract which would also be the of Maharashtra .... 617 law applicable to the Arbitral Tribunal itself. CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT, 1972: (Also see under: International Arbitration Object and historical background of the enactment Act, 2002 (Singapore)) - Discussed. Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. SSang Yong (Also see under: Consumer Protection Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. .... 301 Act, 1986)

ARMS ACT, 1959: Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal s. 27. Exports & Anr. .... 47 (See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 270 CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, BAIL: CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965: (i) Bomb blast - Arrest of appellant - Bail r. 14. application - Held: The case of appellant that the (See under: Service law) .... 1081 charge-sheet was filed beyond 90th day from date CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944: of first remand order was not established and was ss. 9A and 13, r/w s. 104(3) of Customs Act - 1249 1250 Duty evasion and other offences - Held: Are non- arguments and the other party does not insist on cognizable and bailable - Provisions of s. 104(3) it - Once the suit is closed for pronouncement of of Customs Act and s. 13 of the 1944 Act, vest judgment, there is no question of further customs officers and excise officers with the same proceedings in the suit - Merely, because the powers as that of a police officer in charge of a defendants continued to make application after police station, which include the power to release application and the trial court heard those on bail upon arrest in respect of offences applications, it cannot be said that such committed under the two enactments which are appearance by the defendants is covered by the uniformly non-cognizable - If person arrested offers expression "appeared on the day fixed for his bail, he should be released on bail - Customs appearance" occurring in O. 9 r. 7 and thereby Act, 1962. entitling them to address the court on merits of the case - O. 9 r. 7 has no application - It cannot Om Prakash & Anr. v. Union of India be said that any prejudice was caused to the & Anr. .... 240 defendants if the witnesses did not enter the CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1948: witness box - Defendants by their conduct and (See under: Right to Information Act, 2005) .... 328 tactics disentitled themselves from any further indulgence by the trial court - Thus, the trial court CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS REGULATIONS, did not act illegally or with material irregularity or 1988: irrationally or in an arbitrary manner in passing Regulation 39(2). the orders closing the right of the defendants to (See under: Right to Information Act, 2005) .... 328 cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses and fixing the matter for pronouncement of judgment. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: (1) O.8, r. 2. (ii) O. 18, r.15 - Nature of - Held: Provision (See under: Pleadings) .... 472 contained in r. 15 is a special provision - It enables the successor Judge to proceed from the stage (2) (i) O. 18, rr.15, 2, 2(1), (2), (3) and (3A), 7, 4, at which his predecessor left the suit - The idea 5 and 6 (1) (a); O. 9 r. 7; O. 20 r. 1 - Ex-parte behind this provision is to obviate re-recording of decree - Suit for passing off action, declaration the evidence or re-hearing of the suit where a and injunction against defendants as also Judge is prevented by death, transfer or other application for temporary injunction - Held: cause from concluding the trial of a suit and to Defendants, having lost their privilege of cross- take the suit forward from the stage the examining plaintiff's witnesses and of advancing predecessor Judge left the matter - Expression oral arguments, forfeited their right to address the "from the stage at which his predecessor left it" is trial court on merits - Successor Judge can deliver wide and comprehensive enough to take in its the judgment without oral arguments where one fold all situations and stages of the suit - It cannot party has already lost his right of making oral be narrowed down by any exception - The principle 1251 1252 that one who hears must decide the case, is not and to save precious time of the court - applicable to all situations in the hearing of the Examination-in-chief of a witness is now mandated suit - Hearing of a suit does not mean oral to be made on affidavit with a copy thereof to be arguments alone but it comprehends both supplied to the opposite party - Cross-examination production of evidence and arguments - Hearing and re-examination of witness shall be taken either of the suit begins when evidence in suit begins by the court or by Commissioner appointed by it and is concluded by pronouncement of judgment. - In a case in which appeal is allowed, r. 5 provides that the evidence of each witness shall (iii) O. 18 r. 2 - Statement and production of be taken down in writing by or in the presence evidence - Purpose of - Held: Is to give an option and superintendence of the Judge - There is no to the parties to argue their case when the requirement in O. 18, r 5 that in appealable cases, evidence is conducted - Parties themselves the witness must enter the witness box for decide whether they would avail of this privilege production of his affidavit and formally prove the and if they do not avail, they do so at their peril. affidavit - Such witness is required to enter the (iv) O. 18, rr. 2(1) and (2) - Expressions "state his witness box in his cross-examination and, if case", "produce his evidence" and "address the necessary, re-examination. court generally on the whole case" occurring (viii) O. 30, r. 10 - Suit against person carrying on therein - Held: Said expressions have different business in the name other than his own - Held: meanings and connotations. Is an enabling provision - It provides that a person (v) O. 9 r. 7 - Conclusion of hearing of suit and carrying on business in a name or style other than suit closed for judgment - Applicability of O. 9, r. his own name may be sued in such name or style 7 - Held: The provision is not applicable - O. 9 r. as if it were a firm name - As a necessary 7 pre-supposes the suit having been adjourned corollary, the said provision does not enable a for hearing - Adjournment for the purposes of person carrying on business in a name or style pronouncing judgment is no adjournment of the other than in his own name to sue in such name "hearing of the suit". or style. (vi) O. 9 r. 6 (1)(a) - After due service of summons, (ix) O. 20, r 1 - Matter fixed for pronouncement of defendant not appearing when the suit called on judgment - Plea that plaintiff not argued the matter for hearing - Effect of - Held: Order might be as required by O. 20, r. 1 - Effect of, on the passed to hear the suit ex parte - The provision decision of the suit - Held: The plaintiffs had does not in any way impinge upon the power of already advanced the arguments and the judgment the court to proceed for disposal of the suit in was reserved and kept for pronouncement - case both the parties or either of them fail to Judgment could not be pronounced on that day appear as provided in O. 9. and the matter, thereafter, was fixed on various (vii) O. 18, r. 4 - Recording of evidence - Purpose dates on the diverse applications made by the and objective of - Held: Is speedy trial of the case defendants - It cannot be said that the trial judge 1253 1254 ought to have dismissed the suit. consideration for grant of bail can be only on (Also see under: Interlocutory applications; merits. Evidence; and Administrative law). (ii) Relevant date of counting 90 days for filing Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. charge sheet - Held: Is the date of first order of M/s. M.S.S. Food Products .... 1141 the remand and not the date of arrest. (Also see under: Bail; and Constitution of CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: India, 1950) (1) (i) ss.156(3) - Order of Magistrate directing investigation - Complaint with regard to offences Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of punishable u/ss.405, 406, 420 r/w s.34, IPC - Held: Maharashtra .... 617 Three complaints containing similar allegations (3) (i) s.195 - Complaint filed by appellant before were investigated previously and all were closed CAW cell accusing respondent of commission of as the alleged claim was found to be of civil nature offence punishable u/s. 406 r/w s. 34 IPC and - Apart from the fact that the complaint lacked ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Complaint necessary ingredients of ss.405, 406, 420 r/w by respondent alleging that appellant had s.34 IPC, no specific allegation was made against instituted criminal proceedings against him without any person - Complaint was filed in 2002 when any basis and falsely charged him with commission the alleged disputes pertained to the period from of offences knowing that there was no just or lawful 1993-1995 - Courts below ought to have ground for such proceedings or charge and appreciated that the complainant was trying to thereby committed offences punishable u/ss.211 circumvent the jurisdiction of the civil courts which and 500 r/w ss.109, 114 and 34 IPC - estopped him from proceeding on account of the Maintainability of - Held: The bail proceedings law of limitation - In view of the infirmities and in conducted by Sessions Judge in connection with the light of s. 482, High Court ought to have the case which appellant had lodged with CAW quashed the proceedings to safeguard the rights Cell were judicial proceedings and the offence of the appellants - Complaint quashed - Penal punishable u/s.211 IPC alleged to have been Code, 1860 - ss.405, 406, 420 r/w s.34 - Contract committed by the appellant related to the said - Delay/laches. proceedings - Such being the case the bar (ii) s. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings. contained in s.195 was attracted to complaint filed by respondent - Complaint of respondent was not, Thermax Ltd. & Ors. v. K.M. Johny & Ors. .... 154 thus, maintainable - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406 r/ (2) (i) s.167(2) - Held: The right u/s.167(2) to be w s.34 - Dowry Prohibition Act - ss.3 and 4. released on bail on default if charge-sheet is not (ii) s.195 - Scope and ambit of - Discussed. filed within 90 days from the date of first remand is not an absolute or indefeasible right - The said Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. right would be lost if charge-sheet is filed and Anees-ul-Haq .... 1033 1255 1256 (4)(i) ss.306, 307 and 308 - Tender of pardon to may direct the fine amount to be applied in the approver/accomplice - Power to direct tender of payment to any person of compensation for any pardon - Held: An accomplice who has been loss or injury caused by the offence, when granted pardon u/s.306 or s.307 gets protection compensation is, in the opinion of the court, from prosecution - When he is called as a witness recoverable by such person in a civil court - Thus, for the prosecution, he must comply with the if compensation could be paid from out of the condition of making a full and true disclosure and fine, there is no need to award separate if he suppresses anything material and essential compensation - Only where the sentence does within his knowledge concerning the commission not include fine but only imprisonment and the of crime or fails or refuses to comply with the court finds that the person who has suffered any condition on which the tender was made and the loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused Public Prosecutor gives his certificate u/s.308 to person, requires to be compensated, it is that effect, the protection given to him can be lifted permitted to award compensation u/s.357(3) - - Once an accused is granted pardon u/s.306, he Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 - ceases to be an accused and becomes witness Compensation. for the prosecution. (Also see under: Negotiable instruments Act, 1881) (ii) ss. 306, 307 and 308 - Tender of pardon to approver/accomplice - Delay in tendering pardon R. Vijayan v. Baby and Anr. .... 712 - Effect of - Held: Pardon can be tendered at any (6) s.386(e) - Power of High Court - Held: High time after commitment of a case but before the Court is competent to enhance the sentence suo judgment is pronounced - In the instant case, the motu - However, it is permissible only after giving contention regarding delay on the part of the opportunity of hearing to the accused. witness is liable to be rejected - The trial Judge, (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) who had the liberty of noting his appearance and recorded his evidence, believed his version which Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab & was rightly accepted by the High Court. Anr. Etc. .... 862 (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; and Criminal trial) COMPENSATION: (1) (See under: Land Acquisition; and Goa Mrinal Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura .... 411 Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991) .... 735 (5) s.357(3) - Award of compensation - Held: Sub- s.(3) of s.357 is categorical that compensation (2) (See under: Land Acquisition Act, 1894) .... 373 can be awarded only where fine does not form part of the sentence - Sub-s. (1) of s.357 provides (3) (See under: Negotiable instruments Act, that where the court imposes a sentence of fine 1881; and Code of Criminal Procedure, or a sentence of which fine forms a part, the court 1973) .... 712 1257 1258 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950: custodial death and illegal detention - Protection (1) (i) Art. 14 - Class legislation - Permissibility of of victim against - Held: State must ensure - Held: Art. 14 forbids class legislation - However, prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading it does not forbid reasonable classification for the treatment to any person particularly at the hands purpose of legislation - Thus, class legislation is of any State agency/police force - If there is some permitted in law provided the classification is material on record to reveal the police atrocities, founded on an intelligible differentia. court must take stern action against the erring police officials in accordance in law - (ii) Art. 14 - Violation of - Held: Art. 14 strikes at Administration of justice - Criminal justice. arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) must necessarily involve negation of equality - Doctrine of arbitrariness is not restricted only to Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab executive actions, but also applies to legislature & Anr. Etc. .... 862 - There must be a case of substantive (4) Art. 22(2) - Right u/Art. 22(2) is available only unreasonableness in the statute itself for declaring against illegal detention by police - It is not the act ultra vires Art. 14. available against custody in jail of a person (iii) Art. 19(1)(c) - Right to form associations or pursuant to a judicial order - Art. 22(2) does not unions under - Scope of statutory intervention - operate against the judicial order. Held: When the association gets registered under (Also see under: Bail; and Code of Criminal the Co-operative Societies Act, it is governed by Procedure, 1973) the provisions of the Act and rules framed Sadhwi Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of thereunder - In case the association has an option/ Maharashtra .... 617 choice to get registered under a particular statute, if there are more than one statutes operating in (5) (i) Art. 136 - Interference by Supreme Court - the field, State cannot force the society to get Suit for possession of premises by landlord itself registered under a statute for which the alleging that the respondents were gratuitous society has not applied - Co-operative societies. licencees regarding one room and unauthorized (Also see under: Andhra Pradesh Mutually encroachers in respect of the second room, Aided Co-operative Societies (Amendment) decreed - Suit for permanent injunction by Act, 2006 and Administrative law) respondents that they were tenants - Held: Burden was on the respondents to establish that they were A.P. Dairy Development Corporation tenants and not licensees but the first appellate Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy & Ors. .... 1 court wrongly placed the burden upon the (2) Arts. 16(4) and 16(4A). appellants - None of the documents produced or (See under: Service law). .... 502 relied upon by respondents evidenced tenancy or payment of rent - First appellate court failed to (3) Arts. 21 and 22 - Police atrocities, torture, record any finding that respondents were tenants 1259 1260 - High Court did not interfere on the ground that (10) Right to property. no question of law was involved - It failed to notice (See under: Adverse possession; that the inferences and legal effect from proved Evidence; and Property) .... 211 facts is a question of law and the inferences drawn (11) Statutory body - Whether a 'State'. by the first appellate court were wholly unwarranted (See under: Right to Information Act, 2005) .... 328 - Judgments of first appellate court and High Court are unsustainable - Decree for possession of the CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: suit portions granted by trial court restored. (1) Hire-Purchase Agreement in respect of a (ii) Art. 136 - Jurisdiction under - Exercise of - Maruti Omni Car - On failure of hirer to pay hire Interference with findings of facts - When charges in terms of repayment schedule, owner- warranted - Stated. bank took possession of financed vehicle and sold it in auction - Complaint by hirer before Consumer Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare District Forum alleging deficiency in service - & Anr. v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar Allowed by District Forum directing owner to pay (Shetty) & Anr. .... 187 a sum of Rs.1,50,000 - Held: After vehicle was (6) Art. 142. seized, it was also sold and third party rights had (See under: Land Acquisition Act, 894) .... 821 accrued over the vehicle - Appellant-bank had complied with the directions of the District Forum (7) Art. 311(2) (b). notwithstanding the pendency of the case - Since (See under: Service Law) .... 1089 appellant Bank had already accepted decision of District Forum and had paid the amounts as (8) Seventh Schedule, List II, Entry 51 - Held: Entry directed, no relief could be granted to appellant. 51 should be read not only as authorizing the (Also see under: Hire Purchase Agreement) imposition of excise duty, but also as authorizing a provision which prevents evasion of excise duty Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. v. - To ensure that there is no evasion of excise duty S. Vijayalaxmi .... 1050 in regard to manufacture of beer, State is entitled (2)(i) Object and historical background of the to make a provision to prevent evasion of excise enactment - Discussed. duty, though it is leviable at the stage of issue from the brewery - Liquor. (ii) Complaint by consignor claiming compensation (Also see under: Uttar Pradesh Excise - Jurisdiction of National Commission - Held: Act, 1910) National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain State of U.P. & Ors. v. Mohan Meakin and decide a complaint filed by the consignor Breweries Ltd. & Anr. .... 98 claiming compensation for deficiency of service by the carrier, in view of the provisions of the (9) Double jeopardy. Carriage by Air Act and the Warsaw Convention (See under: Service Law) .... 1089 - Carriage by Air Act, 1972. 1261 1262 (iii) Deficiency in service - Delivery of consignment of a court. - Complaint filed before National Commission by Trans Mediterranean Airways v. consignor claiming compensation for deficiency M/s Universal Exports & Anr. .... 47 in service on the ground that the consignments were delivered to wrong person - National CONTRACT: Commission held that the services rendered by (See under: Code of Criminal carrier were deficient and held it liable to pay Procedure, 1973) .... 154 compensation - Held: There was no legal infirmity in the National Commission exercising its CONTRACT ACT, 1872: jurisdiction, as the same can be considered a ss.182 and 230. court within the territory of a High Contracting Party (See under: Maharashtra Rent Control for the purpose of Rule 29 of the Second Schedule Act, 1999; and Textile Undertakings to the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention - (Nationalisation) Act, 1995) .... 472 National Commission was justified in holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES: carrier in not effecting the delivery of goods to the (See under: Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided consignee. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2006). .... 1 (iv) National Commission whether a "court" - Held: The use of the word "Court" in Rule 29 of the COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957: Second Schedule of the Act has been borrowed (See under: Right to Information Act, 2005). .... 328 from the Warsaw Convention - The word "Court" COSTS: has not been used in the strict sense in the (1) (See under: Adverse possession)...... 211 Convention as has come to be in our procedural law - The word "Court" has been employed to (2) (See under: Land Acquisition Act, 1894) .... 1113 mean a body that adjudicates a dispute arising under the provisions of the CP Act - The Act gives CRIME AGAINST WOMEN: the District Forums, State Forums and National (See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, Commission the power to decide disputes of 1973) .... 1033 consumers - The jurisdiction, the power and procedure of these Forums are all clearly CRIMINAL LAW: enumerated by the Act - Though, these Forums (1) Murder case - Corpus Delicti - Recovery of - decide matters after following a summary Held: Conviction for offence of murder does not procedure, their main function is still to decide necessarily depend upon corpus delicti being disputes, which is the main function and purpose found - Corpus delicti in a murder case has two components-death as result and criminal agency of another as the means - Where there is a direct 1263 1264 proof of one, the other may be established by (2) (i) Non-mentioning the name of accused by circumstantial evidence. witness in his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. - (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) Accused named for the first time in the deposition Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab in court - Held: Accused is entitled to benefit of & Anr. Etc. .... 862 doubt. (2) Motive - Held: Proof of motive is not a sine (ii) Extra-ordinary case - Extra-ordinary situations qua non before a person can be held guilty of the demand extra-ordinary remedies - In an commission of a crime -] Motive being a matter unprecedented case, the court has to innovate of the mind, is more often than not, difficult to the law and may also pass unconventional order establish through evidence. keeping in mind the extra-ordinary measures. (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860). (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) Deepak Verma v. State of Himachal Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab Pradesh .... 270 & Anr. Etc. .... 862

CRIMINAL TRIAL: CUSTODIAL DEATH: (See under: Penal Code, 1860; and (1) (i) Hostile witness - Evidence of - Appreciation Constitution of India,1950) .... 862 of - Held: Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot CUSTOMS ACT, 1962: be held to be totally unreliable - The evidence of (See under: Central Excise Act, 1944). .... 240 hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution DELAY/LACHES: -However, the court should be slow to act on the (1) Delay in lodging FIR - Effect on prosecution testimony of such a witness, normally, it should case - Plea that all the family members of look for corroboration with other witnesses. deceased did not make any statement to police until the eventual disclosure of the names of the (ii) Large number of offenders - Necessity of two accused by deceased herself in her dying corroboration - Held: Where a large number of declaration - Held: It is not expected that the close offenders are involved, it is necessary for the court family members would proceed to police station to seek corroboration, at least, from two or more to lodge a report when the injured are in critical witnesses as a measure of caution - It is the quality condition - Delay in lodging complaint could not and not the quantity of evidence to be the rule for be considered fatal to the prosecution case. conviction even where the number of eye- (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860). witnesses is less than two. (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860; and Code Deepak Verma v. State of Himachal of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Pradesh .... 270 Mrinal Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura .... 411 1265 1266 (2) (See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, courses - Benefits of admission in the reserved 1973). .... 154 category is the result of the policy adopted by the State Government to provide for candidates from (3) (See under: Limitation Act, 1963) .... 1204 the reserved category - Appellants having been selected on the basis of merit, in keeping with the DOCTRINES/PRINCIPLES: results of the written examination, the submission (1) Doctrine of estoppel. that such admissions in the reserved category will (See under: Administrative law)...... 1 have to be made keeping in mind the necessity of upholding the standard of education in the (2) Doctrine of proportionality. institution, cannot be accepted. (See under: Administrative Law; and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1141 Parmender Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. .... 1065 (3) Wednesbury principle. EQUITY: (See under: Administrative Law; and (See under: Adverse possession; and Service Law) .... 840 Evidence) .... 211

(4) Principles of natural justice. ESTOPPEL: (i)(See under: Natural justice) .... 1000 (See under: Administrative law)...... 1 (ii) (See under: Administrative Law; and Service Law) .... 840 EVIDENCE: (1) Burden of proof - Held: A person pleading DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT: adverse possession has no equities in his favour ss.3 and 4. since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true (See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, owner - It is for him to clearly plead and establish 1973). .... 1033 all facts necessary to establish adverse possession - Equity. EDUCATION/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: (Also see under: Adverse Possession) Admission to Post-Graduate or Diploma Courses in medicine - Modification in the conditions by the State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. .... 211 State Government after declaration of result and preparation of select list - Power of - Held: Once (2) Circumstantial evidence - Held: Though the results had been declared and a select list conviction may be based solely on circumstantial had been prepared, it was not open to the State evidence, however, the circumstances from which Government to alter the terms and conditions just the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be a day before counselling was to begin, so as to fully established - The facts so established must deny the candidates, who had already been be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of selected, an opportunity of admission in the said the accused and the chain of evidence must be 1267 1268 so complete as not to leave any reasonable (See under: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) .... 945 ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in (6) Secondary evidence - Trial court granting the all human probability, the act must have been plaintiff liberty to lead secondary evidence - Held: committed by the accused. Trial court did not commit any error in permitting (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence when the original assignment deed was reportedly lost. Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of (Also see under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Maharashtra .... 921 Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. (3) Dying declaration. M/s. M.S.S. Food Products .... 1141 (See under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 270 (7) Standard of proof - Departmental proceeding (4) (i) Evidence of an accomplice not put on trial vis-à-vis criminal proceedings. - Conviction on basis of his uncorroborated (See under: Labour laws; and Service law) .... 1089 testimony - Held: Such an accomplice is a competent witness - He deposes in court after EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: taking oath and there is no prohibition in any law (1) s.106 - Applicability of - Burden of proof under not to act upon his deposition without corroboration - Held: s. 106 is not intended to relieve the - However, no reliance can be placed on the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of evidence of accomplice unless evidence is accused beyond reasonable doubt - It is designed corroborated in material particulars - There has to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it to be some independent witness tending to would be impossible for prosecution to establish incriminate the accused in the crime. certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. (ii) Testimony of sole eye-witness - Reliability of - (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) Held: There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab - If there are doubts about testimony, court would & Anr. Etc. .... 862 insist on corroboration - Test is whether the evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy or (2) s.133 r/w s.114, Illustration (b) - Evidentiary otherwise. value of "approver" and its acceptability with or (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860) without corroboration - Held: Though a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on the Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab uncorroborated testimony of an approver, yet the & Anr. Etc. .... 862 universal practice is not to convict upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it is (5) Onus to prove incurable unsound mind of corroborated in material particulars - Insistence spouse - Lies on the party alleging it. 1269 1270 upon corroboration is based on the rule of caution GOA, DAMAN AND DIU AGRICULTURAL TENANCY and is not merely a rule of law - Corroboration ACT, 1964: need not be in the form of ocular testimony of (See under: Goa Land Use (Regulation) witnesses and may even be in the form of Act, 1991) .... 735 circumstantial evidence. (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860; and Code GOA LAND USE (REGULATION) ACT, 1991: of Criminal Procedure, 1973) (i) ss.2, 13 - Compensation - Determination of - Acquisition of agricultural land - Held: - In view of Mrinal Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura .... 411 permanent restriction regarding user and the bar in regard to any non-agricultural use, the acquired EXCISE LAWS: land would have to be valued only as an agricultural Liquor. land and could not be valued with reference to (See under: Uttar Pradesh Excise sales statistics of other nearby lands which had Act, 1910) .... 98 the potential of being used for urban development FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT, 1999: - At least 50% would have to be deducted from (1) s.19 - Appeal - Pre-deposit of penalty - market value of freehold land with development Dispensation of - Held: The appellants failed to potential to arrive at market value of such land make out a case, which could justify an order by which could be used only for agricultural purposes Appellate Tribunal to relieve them of the statutory - Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, obligation to deposit the amount of penalty - 1964. Appellants had the exclusive knowledge of their (ii) Object of the enactment - Discussed. financial condition/status and it was their duty to (Also see under: Land acquisition) candidly disclose all their assets, movable and immovable, including those in respect of which Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra orders of attachment may passed by judicial and Govind Pawaskar & Anr. .... 735 quasi judicial forums - Besides, they deliberately HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955: concealed the facts relating to their financial (i) s.13 - Petition for divorce by husband on condition - Therefore, Appellate Tribunal rightly grounds of (i) 'cruelty' and (ii) incurable 'unsound refused to entertain their prayer for total exemption. mind' of wife - Held: Husband established and Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, proved both the grounds - Various doctors and Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. .... 1204 other witnesses examined to prove that the wife was suffering from mental disorder - All the four (2) s. 35. doctors/Psychiatrists who treated the wife and (See under: Limitation Act, 1963) .... 1024 prescribed medicines also expressed the view that it was "incurable" - The acts and conduct of the wife were such as to cause pain, agony and suffering to the husband which amounted to cruelty 1271 1272 in matrimonial law - Further, they were living INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS: separately for the last more than nine years and Orders passed by trial court on interlocutory there is no possibility to unite them - Divorce applications Challenged before Supreme Court - petition filed by husband allowed. Plea that the trial court erred in not adhering to the pre-trial procedures and contentions raised (ii) s.13 - Dissolution of marriage by decree of by defendants not considered by High Court - divorce on ground of 'unsound mind' - Held: The Held: Not permissible - The proper course onus of proving that the other spouse is incurably available to defendants was to bring to the notice of unsound mind or is suffering from mental of High Court the aspect by filing a review disorder lies on the party alleging it - It must be application - Such course was never adopted. proved by cogent and clear evidence. (Also see under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908). (iii) s.13 - Dissolution of marriage by decree of Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal & Anr. v. divorce on ground of 'cruelty' - Repeated threats M/s. M.S.S. Food Products .... 1141 to commit suicide - Held: Cruelty postulates treating of a spouse with such cruelty as to create INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT, 2002 reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would (SINGAPORE): be harmful or injurious for him to live with the other (1) (i) International commercial arbitration - Held: party - Giving repeated threats to commit suicide Where the arbitration agreement provides that the amounts to cruelty. seat of arbitration is Singapore and arbitration proceedings are to be conducted in accordance Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal .... 945 with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT: Rules (SIAC Rules) then the Act 2002 of Recovery process - Forcible possession of Singapore will be the law of arbitration as is vehicles - Held: Even in case of mortgaged goods provided in rule 32 of SIAC Rules - Once the subject to Hire-Purchase Agreements, recovery arbitrator is appointed and the arbitral process has to be in accordance with law - proceedings are commenced, the SIAC Rules Guidelines laid down by Reserve Bank of India become applicable shutting out the applicability are significant - If any action is taken for recovery of s.42 of the 1996 Act including Part I and the in violation of such guidelines or the principles as right of appeal u/s.37 thereof - Arbitration and laid down by Supreme Court, such action cannot Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss.2, 9, 42 - Singapore but be struck down. International Arbitration Centre Rules - r.32. (Also see under: Consumer Protection Act, 1986). (ii) Proper law and Curial law - Distinction between Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. v. - Discussed. S. Vijayalaxmi .... 1050 (Also see under: Arbitration) Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. SSang Yong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. .... 301 1273 1274 (2) Interlocutory application - Clarification/ the other, in the LA Act, is a classic example, correction of clerical errors in the judgment - In where the same words have different meanings para 35 of the judgment reported in 2011 SCR in different provisions of the same enactment - 14 301, it was indicated that the SIAC Rules The context in which the words are used in ss.4(1) would be the Curial law of the arbitration and 6, and the context in which the same words proceedings - Held: It is clarified that the Curial are used in s.23(1) are completely different - Land law is the International Arbitration law of Singapore Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4, 6 and 23. and not the SIAC Rules. (Also see under: Land Acquisition Act, 1894) Yograj Infrastructure Ltd. v. SSang Yong Kolkata Metropolitan Development Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. .... 324 Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr. .... 373 INTERNATIONAL LAW: Warsaw Convention. JAMMU AND KASHMIR LAND ACQUISITION ACT, (See under: Consumer Protection 1990: Act, 1986). .... 47 (i) ss.4(1)(a), (b), (c) - Compliance of - Held: Procedure provided in sub-ss. (a), (b) and (c) are INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: mandatory and are to be strictly complied with. (1) Compliance - Held: When any statutory (ii) ss.4(1), 5-A - Acquisition notification for provision provides a particular manner for doing development of housing colony - Challenged by a particular act, the said thing or act must be respondents-land owners by filing writ petition done in accordance with the manner prescribed before High Court - High Court allowed the writ therefor in the Act - Jammu and Kashmir Land petition with liberty to respondents to file objections Acquisition Act, 1990. within 15 days - Held: The conditions prescribed (Also see under: Jammu and Kashmir Land in s.4(1)(c) was not complied with - Notification Acquisition Act, 1990). was published in two daily newspapers but one J & K Housing Board & Anr. v. Kunwar of them was not a newspaper published in Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors. .... 976 regional language which is the requirement of s.4(1)(c) - A corrigendum issued for enlarging the (2) Same words having different meanings in area of acquisition was also not published in any different provisions of the same enactment - newspaper - The procedures provided in Permissibility - Held: The same words used in s.4(1)(a)(b) and (c) are to be strictly complied with different parts of a statute should normally bear - It is not in dispute that when the officers the same meaning - But depending upon the attempted to serve the notice by affixation or to context, the same words used in different places persons in charge of the land, they were informed of a statue may also have different meaning - The about the absence of the land-owners due to use of the words 'publication of the notification' in disturbance in the area - Inspite of such ss.4(1) and 6 on the one hand and in s.23(1) on 1275 1276 information, the authorities did not send proper enquiry had been the same which were in the notice to the respondents or comply with the criminal trial - Workman shall be entitled only to provisions, particularly, s.4(1)(c) - Order of High the relief granted by the writ court, as the employer Court quashing the acquisition proceedings from did not challenge the said order. the stage of s.5A of the Act upheld - Land (Also see under: Service law). Acquisition. Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. (Also see under: Interpretation of Statutes). M.G. Vittal Rao .... 1089 J & K Housing Board & Anr. v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors. .... 976 LAND ACQUISITION: (1) Acquisition of agricultural land - State and its JUNIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICERS SERVICE POSTAL instrumentalities resorting to massive acquisition WING (GROUP C) RECRUITMENT RULES, of agricultural land in the name of public purpose, 1977: without complying with the mandate of the statute rr.14 and 18. - Held: It is wholly unjust, arbitrary and (See under: Service Law) .... 840 unreasonable to deprive such persons of their houses/land/industry by way of acquisition of land JURISDICTION: in the name of development of infrastructure or Jurisdiction of civil court. industrialization - Before acquiring private land the (See under: Public Premises (Eviction of State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971) .... 533 as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes - If the acquisition LABOUR LAWS: of private land becomes absolutely necessary, Dismissal from service - Theft committed by then the authorities must strictly comply with the workman - Domestic enquiry - Workman found relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural guilty - Labour Court upheld the punishment of justice. dismissal - Acquittal in criminal case - On writ (Also see under: Land Acquisition Act, 1894) petition by workman, Single Judge of High Court modified the order of dismissal into an order of Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana termination and directed the employer to pay the and Ors. .... 1113 terminal benefits - Division Bench, on appeal by workman, quashed the award of Labour Court and (2) (i) Compensation - Determination of, in respect held the workman entitled to reinstatement into of similarly situated land in the same area - Held: service with all consequential benefits - Held: High Similarly situated land in the same area, having Court simply decided the case taking into the same advantages and acquired under the consideration the acquittal of delinquent employee same notification should be awarded the same and nothing else - There was no finding by High compensation - But if an acquired land is subject Court that the charges leveled in the domestic to a statutory covenant that it can be used only for 1277 1278 agriculture and cannot be used for any other been taken after giving notice to the appellant nor purpose, necessarily it will have to be valued as was he present at the site when the possession agricultural land. of the acquired land was stated to have been delivered to the beneficiary - Exercise showing (ii) Vacant land vis-à-vis land in possession of delivery of possession was farce and long term lessee - Compensation - Determination inconsequential - The record prepared by the of. revenue authorities showing delivery of (Also see under: Goa Land Use (Regulation) possession of the acquired land to the beneficiary Act, 1991) has no legal sanctity - Land-owner was not given Goa Housing Board v. Rameshchandra opportunity of hearing as per the mandate of Govind Pawaskar & Anr. .... 735 s.5A(2) - Thus, acquisition of his land is illegal and is quashed - State directed to pay to land- (3) (See under: Jammu and Kashmir Land owner, cost of Rs. 2,50,000/- - Costs. Acquisition Act, 1990) .... 976 (Also see under: Land acquisition)

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of (1) ss. 4(1) and 6 - Land acquisition for expansion Haryana and Ors. .... 1113 of depot of Roadways Corporation - Held: The (3) (i) s.23 - Acquisition of land classified as decision taken by the Government is not vitiated agricultural land marsh land - Compensation as by any error of law nor is it irrational or founded enhanced by reference court and affirmed by High on the extraneous reasons - Corporation or its Court, modified. successor not being a 'company' as defined in s. 3(e), Part VII of the Act is not applicable and as (ii) s.23 - Acquisition of land - Determination of such procedure contemplated in Part VII having compensation - Addition towards appreciation in not been followed, it cannot be said that acquisition value between the date of exemplar sale and the is bad in law - Appellants can be suitably date of preliminary notification as regards the compensated - Not a case fit for exercise of power acquisition in question - Held: Unless the under Art. 142 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. difference is more than one year, normally no 142. addition should be made towards appreciation in value, unless there is special evidence to show Ramji Veerji Patel & Ors. v. Revenue some specific increase within a short period. Divisional Officer & Ors. .... 821 (iii) s.23 - Acquisition of land - Determination of (2) ss. 4(1), 6(1), 5A(2) and 9 - Acquisition of compensation - Addition of percentages for agricultural land - No opportunity of hearing given advantageous frontage - Held: Advantage of a - Actual possession of land still with land-owner - better frontage is considered to be a plus factor Held: No evidence to show that actual possession while assessing the value of two similar properties, of the land on which the crop was standing had 1279 1280 particularly in any commercial or residential area, calculated only after adjusting the advance when one has a better frontage than the other - payment with interest therein towards the However where the value of large tracts of compensation amount. undeveloped agricultural land situated on the (vi) ss.4 and 23 - Acquisition of land - periphery of a city in an area which is yet to be Determination of compensation - Relevant date developed is being determined with reference to for determining compensation - Held: One of the value of nearby small residential plot, the question principles in regard to determination of market of adding any percentage for the advantage of value u/s.23(1) is that the rise in market value frontage to the acquired lands, does not arise. after the publication of the notification u/s.4(1) of (iv) s.23 - Acquisition of land - Determination of the Act should not be taken into account for the compensation - Deductions for development from purpose of determination of market value - In value of small developed plots to arrive at the s.23(1), the words "the date of publication of the value of acquired lands - Factors to be taken into notification u/s 4(1)" would refer to the date of consideration - Explained - On facts, the reference publication of the notification in the gazette. court after considering the facts found that one- (Also see under: Interpretation of Statutes) third of the value of the small developed plot should Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. be deducted towards development/development Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr. .... 373 cost, to arrive at the value of the acquired lands -High Court did not interfere with the said LEGISLATION: percentage of deduction - In the circumstances, Need for legislation - There is an urgent need for no reason to alter the percentage of deduction of a fresh look on the entire law of adverse 33.33%. possession - Recommendation to Union of India (v) ss. 4 and 23 - Acquisition of land - to immediately consider and seriously deliberate Determination of compensation - Relevant date - either abolition of the law of adverse possession Adjustment of advance payment - Held: The and in the alternate to make suitable amendments relevant date for determination of compensation in law of adverse possession. would be the date of publication of the preliminary (Also see under: Adverse possession) notification u/s.4(1) of the LA Act -However if in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. .... 211 anticipation of acquisition the Land Acquisition Officer had made any payment to the land owner LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION ACT, 1956: they will be entitled to credit therefor with interest s. 21 - Corporation to be guided by directions of at 15% per annum from the date of payment to Central Government - Guidelines dated 30.5.2002 date of publication of preliminary notification - laid down by the Central Government that the Though solatium and additional amount will be provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 should calculated on the entire compensation amount, be used primarily to evict totally unauthorised statutory interest payable to land-owner will be 1281 1282 occupants and to secure periodic revision of rent in the applications seeking condonation that they in terms of the provisions of the Rent Control Act had been prosecuting remedy before a wrong in each State, or to move under genuine grounds forum, i.e. the Delhi High Court with due diligence under the Rent Control Act for resuming and in good faith - Besides, the prayer made in possession - Held: The guidelines are not the applications was for condonation of 1056 days directions u/s. 21 - Purpose of these guidelines delay and not for exclusion of the time spent in is to prevent arbitrary use of powers under the prosecuting the writ petitions before the wrong Public Premises Act - Relevance of the guidelines forum Delhi High Court - This showed that the would depend upon the nature of guidelines and appellants were seeking to invoke s.5 which the source of power to issue such guidelines - cannot be pressed into service in view of the Source of the right to apply for determination of language of s.35 of the FEMA - There was total standard rent is the Rent Control Act, and not the absence of good faith, which is sine qua non for guidelines - Also, by subsequent clarificatory invoking s.14- Foreign Exchange Management order, the Central Government made it clear that Act, 1999 - Delay - Condonation of. the guidelines dated 30.5.2002 would not apply (Also see under: Foreign Exchange to affluent tenants - Public Premises (Eviction of Management Act, 1999) Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, (Also see under: Public Premises Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. .... 1204 (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971) LIQUOR: Banatwala & Company v. L.I.C. of India Beer - Process of Brewing - Discussed. & Anr. .... 533 (Also see under: Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910) .... 98 LIMITATION ACT, 1963: s.14 - Delay in filing appeal - Condonation of - MAHARASHTRA CONTROL OF ORGANISED Imposition of penalty on appellants for CRIME ACT, 1999: contravening provisions of FEMA - Plea that the s. 21. entire period during which writ petition remained (See under: Bail) .... 617 pending before Delhi High Court should be MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999: excluded - Held: Not tenable - Existence of good (1) ss. 2(14), 8 and 29 - Provisions for fixation of faith is a sine qua non for invoking s.14 - standard rent and maintenance of essential Appellants filed writ petition before wrong forum services under the Act - Applicability of, to public and came to the forum having jurisdiction to premises owned by public corporations/ entertain the appeal after delay of 1056 days and undertakings - Held: The subjects of fixation of sought condonation of delay - Delay was rightly standard rent and restoration of essential services held not condonable since there was no averment by the landlord are covered under the Rent Control 1283 1284 Act and not under the Public Premises Act - Government as the rights vested in the appellant Application of the tenants for the said matters stood crystallised after being transferred by the when necessary, are maintainable under the Rent Central Government - Hence not entitled for Control Act - Eviction and recovery of arrears of exemption u/s.3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Act - Textile rent are alone covered under the Public Premises Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - Act - Thus, the provisions of the Maharastra Rent Contract Act, 1872 - ss.182 and 230. Control Act with respect to fixation of standard (Also see under: Textile Undertakings rent for premises, and requiring the landlord not (Nationalisation) Act, 1995; and Pleadings) to cut off or withhold essential supply or service, National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. and to restore the same when necessary, are not Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. .... 472 in conflict with or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Public Premises Act - Provisions of Rent MINES AND MINERALS: Control Act govern the relationship between the Mining lease - Overlapping of the area covered public undertakings and their occupants to the by the two leases - Held: When large areas are extent it covers the other aspects of the granted for mining purposes, some confusion as relationship between the landlord and tenants, not to the boundaries of such areas especially if they covered under the Public Premises Act - Public are adjacent to each other is not abnormal - In Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) such cases, a fresh demarcation is to be Act, 1971 - ss. 2(e), 5, 7 and 15. conducted and boundaries are to be fixed - (Also see under: Public Premises (Eviction of Directions issued for proper identification and Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; Constitution demarcation of the areas. of India,1950; Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956; and Rent control and eviction) Ashok Kumar Lingala v. State of Karnataka & Ors. .... 800 Banatwala & Company v. L.I.C. of India & Anr. .... 533 MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: (i) ss. 149(2) and 170 - Claim petition - Position (2) s.3(1)(a) and (b) - Exemption from application in cases where the claimants implead the insurer of the Act - Claim for - Tenability - Status of as a respondent - Held: Where the insurer is a appellant - (National Textile Corporation) - Held: party-respondent, either on account of being The Central Government and the appellant are impleaded as a party by the tribunal u/s. 170 or separate legal entities and not synonymous - being impleaded as a party-respondent by the Appellant is being controlled by the provisions of claimants in the claim petition voluntarily, it would the 1995 Act and not by the Central Government be entitled to contest the matter by raising all - Appellant is a Government Company and neither grounds, without being restricted to the grounds government nor government department - Nor can available u/s. 149(2) of the Act. it claim the status of an 'agent' of the Central 1285 1286 (ii) s. 149(2) - Claim petition - Position in cases NATURAL JUSTICE: where the insurer is only a noticee u/s. 149(2) (1) Principles of natural justice - Extent and and has not been impleaded as a party to the application of -Requirement of giving reasonable claim proceedings - Held: An insurer, without opportunity of being heard before an order is seeking to avoid or exclude its liability under the made by an administrative, quasi-judicial or policy, on grounds other than those mentioned in judicial authority, when such an order entails s. 149(2)(a) and (b), can contest the claim, in adverse civil consequences - Held: There can be regard to the quantum - s. 149(2) does not require exceptions to the said doctrine - Its extent and its the insurer to concede wrong claims or false application cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula claims or not to challenge erroneous determination - Whether the principle has to be applied or not of compensation - If the owner of the is to be considered bearing in mind the express vehicle(insured) fails to file an appeal when an language and the basic scheme of the provision erroneous award is made, he fails to contest the conferring the power; the nature of the power same and consequently, the insurer should be able conferred; the purpose for which the power is to file an appeal, by applying the principle conferred and the final effect of the exercise of underlying s. 170 - Matter referred to larger bench. that power on the rights of the person affected. (Also see under: Special Court (Trial of Offences (iii) ss. 173, 168 and 149 - Joint appeal by the Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992) owner of the vehicle (insured) and insurer - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable - When the Ashiwin S. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India insurer becomes a co-appellant, the insured does & Ors. .... 1000 not cease to be a person aggrieved - When a (2) (See under: Administrative Law) .... 840 counsel holds vakalatnama for an insurer and the insured in a joint appeal, the court cannot say his NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881: arguments and submissions are only on behalf of (i) s.138 - Sentencing under - Respondent found the insurer and not on behalf of the insured. guilty u/s.138 - Magistrate sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs.2000 and in default to undergo (iv) Claim petition - For compensation in regard imprisonment and also directed her to pay to a motor accident - Nature of - Held: An award Rs.20,000 as compensation to the complainant by the tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial and in default to undergo simple imprisonment adjudication between the litigating parties to a for three months - Held: Magistrate having levied dispute but a statutory determination of fine of Rs.2,000/-, it was impermissible to levy compensation on the occurrence of an accident, any compensation having regard to s.357(3), after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute. Cr.P.C. - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta s.357(3). & Ors. .... 763 (ii) s.138 - Methods to improve the disposal of 1287 1288 cases u/s.138 of the Act - Suggested. the other two accused u/s.302 - Held: Justified - The statement of approver (PW-6) was confidence (iii) s.138 - Purpose of enactment - Held: Cases inspiring and there was nothing wrong in accepting arising u/s.138 are really civil cases his entire statement - The ocular evidence of the masquerading as criminal cases - The avowed approver (PW-6) stood corroborated by the object of Chapter 17 of the Act is to "encourage medical evidence - There was common intention the culture of use of cheques and enhance the among the accused persons including the six credibility of the instrument" - It provides a single persons identified by the eye-witnesses - High forum and single proceeding, for enforcement of Court was right in applying s.34 and basing criminal liability (for dishonouring the cheque) and conviction of six accused persons. for enforcement of the civil liability (for realization of the cheque amount) thereby obviating the need (ii) s.34 - Applicability of - Held: The existence of for the creditor to move two different forums for common intention amongst the participants in the relief. crime is the essential element for application of s.34 and it is not necessary that the acts of several (iv) s.143(1) - Imposition of fine - Held: In view of persons charged with the commission of an conferment of such special power and jurisdiction offence jointly must be the same or identically upon the First Class Magistrate, the ceiling as to similar - In the instant case, from the materials the amount of fine stipulated in s.29(2) of the Code placed by the prosecution, particularly, from the is removed - Consequently, in regard to any eye-witnesses, the common intention can be prosecution for offences punishable u/s.138 of the inferred among the accused persons including the Act, a First Class Magistrate may impose a fine six persons identified by the eye-witnesses - It is exceeding Rs.5000/-, the ceiling being twice the clear that the 13 assailants had planned and amount of the cheque. remained present on the shore of the river to (Also see under: Code of Criminal Procedure, eliminate the deceased - In view of these 1973) materials, High Court was right in applying s.34 R. Vijayan v. Baby and Anr. .... 712 IPC to base conviction of six accused persons.

PENAL CODE, 1860: (iii) ss.34 and 149 - Distinction between common (1) (i) s.302 r/w s.34 - Murder - 13 accused - intention and common object - Discussed. Prayer of A-12 for grant of 'pardon' and to treat (Also see under: Code of Criminal Procedure, him as an 'approver' allowed by trial court - 1973; and Evidence Act, 1872) Disclosure made by him - Examined as PW-6 - Mrinal Das & Ors. v. State of Tripura .... 411 Trial court convicted two accused u/s.302 but acquitted the remaining ten accused - High Court (2) (i) ss. 302/34, 364/34 and 201/4 - Conviction set aside acquittal of four accused and convicted and sentence - Abduction and murder of human them u/ss. 302/34 and also affirmed conviction of right activist by police officials - Conviction of DSP 1289 1290 and ASI u/ss. 302/34 and sentence of life of the victim and the statements of her relations, imprisonment imposed - Conviction of four who had appeared as prosecution witnesses, duly appellants u/ss. 120-B and 364/34 and sentence established the commission of the offence, as well of RI for five years and seven years respectively as, the common motive for the two accused to - High Court acquitted ASI, however, enhanced have joined hands in committing the crime - the sentence of four appellants from 7 years Conviction upheld. rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment - Held: (ii) ss.302 and 323 r/w s.27 of Arms Act - There is trustworthy evidence in respect of Conviction of two accused for causing death of abduction of the activist as well as his illegal two persons - Plea of A-2 that no role attributed detention - Courts below rightly drew the to him - Held: Evidence on record showed that presumption that the appellants were responsible the two accused had come together on a scooter for the abduction, illegal detention and murder - to commit the offence - A-1fired first two shots at Order of the High Court upheld. the victim from his double barrel gun - Thereafter (ii) s.302/34 - One accused convicted u/s.302/34, A-2 provided two live cartridges to A-1 - After other accused persons stood acquitted - Effect of commission of the crime, both accused jointly - Held: It is impossible to hold that accused shared made escape on a scooter - Therefore, it cannot the common intention with other co-accused who be held that A-2 was merely a bystander and was is acquitted unless it is shown that some other incidentally present at the place of occurrence - unknown persons were also involved in the offence He was rightly convicted. - Accused can be charged for having shared the (Also see under: Delay/laches; and common intention with another or others unknown, Criminal law) either by direct evidence or by legitimate Deepak Verma v. State of Himachal inference. Pradesh .... 270 (Also see under: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India, 1950; Criminal law; (4) ss. 302 and 376 - Rape and murder of a minor Criminal trial; Evidence; and Evidence Act.) girl -Circumstantial evidence - Conviction - Held: Dead body of deceased was found inside the Prithipal Singh Etc. v. State of Punjab house of accused - There were blood stains on & Anr. Etc. .... 862 the bed-sheet and on the floor underneath the cot (3) (i) ss.302 and 323 r/w s.27 of Arms Act - - Evidence of the doctor who conducted the post- Conviction of two accused for causing death of mortem, that there had been sexual assault on two persons by gun shot injuries - Held: the victim and she died of strangulation - Prosecution established that it was only on account Conviction affirmed - However, the case does not of the rejection of marriage proposal that the fall within the "rarest of rare cases" - Punishment accused, as an act of retaliation and vengeance, of death sentence awarded by High Court set jointly committed the offence - Dying declaration aside and the sentence of life imprisonment as 1291 1292 awarded by trial court restored. in respect of any factual controversy whatsoever, (Also see under: Evidence; and Sentence/ however, a new ground raising a pure legal issue sentencing). for which no inquiry/proof is required can be permitted to be raised by the court at any stage Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of of the proceedings. Maharashtra .... 921 (Also See under: Maharashtra Rent Control (5) ss.405, 406, 420 r/w s.34. Act, 1999; and Textile Undertakings (See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, (Nationalisation) Act, 1995). 1973). .... 154 National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. (6) ss. 406 r/w s. 34 Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. .... 472 (See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, PROPERTY: 1973) .... 1033 (i) Right to property - Held: Is not only constitutional PLEADINGS: or statutory right but also a human right - (i) Purpose and necessity of - Held: Pleadings Therefore, even claim of adverse possession has and particulars are necessary to enable the court to be read in that context - Constitution of India, to decide the rights of the parties in the trial - A 1950. decision of a case cannot be based on grounds (ii) Protection of property rights - Discussed. outside the pleadings of the parties - A party has (Also see under: Adverse possession) to take proper pleadings and prove the same by State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. .... 211 adducing sufficient evidence - In view of the provisions of O. 8, r. 2, CPC, the appellant was PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED under an obligation to take a specific plea to show OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971: that the eviction suit filed against it was not (i) ss. 2(e), 5, 7, 15 - Eviction of unauthorised maintainable which it failed to do - The appellant occupants from Public Premises and recovery of ought to have taken a plea in the written statement arrears of rent from them - Initiation of proceedings that it was merely an 'agent' of the Central under the Act - Held: Proceedings initiated by the Government, thus the suit against it was not landlord would be fully competent under the Act - maintainable - The appellant did not take such Occupants would not be entitled to seek any plea before either of the courts below - More so, remedy under the Bombay Rent Act or the whether A is an agent of B is a question of fact subsequent Maharashtra Rent Control Act since and has to be properly pleaded and proved by the jurisdiction of the civil court has been ousted adducing evidence - The appellant miserably failed u/s. 15 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House to take the required pleadings for the purpose - Rates (Control) Act, 1947 - Maharashtra Rent Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 8, r. 2. Control Act, 1999. (ii) New plea - Held: A new plea cannot be taken 1293 1294 (ii) ss. 10 and 15 - Jurisdiction of civil courts for general - Changes brought about by the Rent the remedies of fixation of rent or maintenance of Control Acts - Explained and discussed. essential services - Held: Is not ousted - Actions (Also see under: Public Premises (Eviction of covered under the Act are concerning eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971; Maharashtra unauthorised occupants and recovery of arrears Rent Control Act, 1999; and Constitution of India, of rent - The Act does not speak anything about 1950). the fixation of standard rent or maintenance of Banatwala & Company v. L.I.C. of India essential services and no remedy is provided & Anr. .... 533 thereunder - The fact that the proceeding for one purpose is provided under one statute cannot lead (2) (See under: Maharashtra Rent Control to an automatic conclusion that the remedy for a Act, 1999; and Textile Undertakings different purpose provided under another (Nationalisation) Act, 1995) .... 472 competent statute becomes unavailable. (Also see under: Maharashtra Rent Control RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005: Act,1999: Life Insurance Corporation Act, (i) s.8(1)(d) - Examination of candidates for 1956; and Constitution of India,1950). enrolment as Chartered Accountants - Claim as intellectual property by Institute of Chartered Banatwala & Company v. L.I.C. of India Accountants of India (ICAI) of its instructions and & Anr. .... 533 solutions to questions given to examiners and moderators and exemption thereof u/s s.8(1)(d) REFERENCE TO LARGER BENCH: of the Act - Held: ICAI voluntarily publishes the Appeal by insurer - Maintainability - Question "suggested answers" in regard to the question referred to larger Bench. papers in the form of a book for sale every year, (See under: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) .... 763 after the examination - Therefore s.8(1)(d) of the RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION: Act does not bar or prohibit the disclosure of (1) (i) Exemption from operation of Rent Act - question papers, model answers (solutions to Legislative expectations from public bodies as questions) and instructions if any given to the landlords - Held: Exercise of discretion of public examiners and moderators after the examination authorities must be tested on the assumption that and after the evaluation of answerscripts is they would act for public benefit and would not act completed, as at that stage they will not harm the as private landlords - However, these principles competitive position of any third party. not relevant while considering a dispute between (ii) s.9 - Examination of candidates for enrolment a statutory body as landlord and an affluent tenant as Chartered Accountants - Claim of copy right in regard to a commercial or non-residential by ICAI with regard to instructions and solutions premises. to questions issued by it to examiners and (ii) Relationship between landlord and tenant in moderators and thus seeking protection u/s 9 - 1295 1296 Held: ICAI being a statutory body created by the in accountability and containing corruption on the Chartered Accountants Act, 1948 is 'State' - one hand, and at the same time ensure that the Providing access to information in respect of revelation of information, in actual practice, does which ICAI holds a copyright, does not involve not harm or adversely affect other public interests infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person which include efficient functioning of the other than the State - Therefore ICAI is not entitled governments, optimum use of limited fiscal to claim protection against disclosure u/s.9 of the resources and preservation of confidentiality of Act - Besides, the words 'infringement of copyright' sensitive information, on the other hand - While have a specific connotation - A combined reading ss. 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, ss. of ss. 51 and 52(1)(a) of Copyright Act shows 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second that furnishing of information by an examining body, objective. in response to a query under the RTI Act may not (vi) s.8 - Categories of information which are be termed as an infringement of copyright. exempted from disclosure u/s.8 - explained - In (iii) s. 8(1)(e) - Examination of candidates for the instant case the Chief Information enrolment as Chartered Accountants - Commissioner rightly held that the information Examination held by appellant ICAI - Held: The sought under queries (3) and (5) were exempted instructions and solutions to questions u/s.8(1)(e) and that there was no larger public communicated by the examining body to the interest requiring denial of the statutory exemption examiners, head-examiners and moderators, are regarding such information. information available to such persons in their (vii) Examination of candidates for enrolment as fiduciary relationship and, therefore, exempted Chartered Accountants held by ICAI - Information from disclosure u/s.8(1)(d) of the Act. sought under the Act - Held: As the information (iv) s.4(1)(b) and (c) - Information to which RTI Act sought under parts (i), (iii) and (v) of the query are applies - Explained - In dealing with information not maintained and is not available in the form of not falling u/s.4(1)(b) and (c), the competent data with ICAI in its records, it is not bound to authorities under the Act will not read the furnish the same - Chartered Accountants exemptions in s.8 in a restrictive manner but in a Regulations, 1988 - Regulation 39(2). practical manner so that the other public interests (viii) Examination of candidates for enrolment as are preserved and the Act attains a fine balance Chartered Accountants held by ICAI - Information between its goal of attaining transparency of sought under the Act - Held: On facts, it cannot be information and safeguarding the other public said that the applicant had indulged in improper interests. use of the Act - His application was intended to (v) ss. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 - Object of the Act - bring about transparency and accountability in the Held: Is to harmonize the conflicting public functioning of ICAI - However, how far he was interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring entitled to the information was a different issue. 1297 1298 (ix) New regime of disclosure of maximum wherein the appellant fully participated - The information - Duty of competent authorities under findings were based on evidence recorded the RTI Act to maintain a proper balance - Held: subsequently in presence of the delinquent and, Examining bodies like ICAI should tune themselves as such, did not suffer from any legal infirmity - to the new regime - Accountability and prevention Deliquent's right of departmental appeal was not of corruption is possible only through transparency taken away and he could have challenged that - As the examining bodies and their examination order in the departmental appeal to the higher processes have not been exempted, the authority - He did not avail of that opportunity and examining bodies will have to gear themselves to instead challenged the order in a writ petition comply with the provisions of the Act - Additional before the High Court - His right of appeal not workload is not a defence. affected by the order passed by the Chief Judge - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Appeal) Rules, 1965 - r. 14. Shaunak H.Satya & Ors. .... 328 S. Loganathan v. Union of India and Ors. .... 1081 SENTENCE/ SENTENCING: Death sentence - 'Rarest of the rare case' - (2) Promotion - Examination for promotion to the Explained - For awarding the death sentence, post of Junior Accounts Officer- Candidates stated there must be existence of aggravating to have resorted to mass-copying - Held: High circumstances and the consequential absence of Court ought not to have interfered with the decision mitigating circumstances - As to whether death taken by the employers requiring the candidates sentence should be awarded, would depend upon to reappear in the subsequent examination, in the factual scenario of the case in hand. order to qualify for regular promotion - The (Also see under: Penal Code, 1860). procedure adopted by the employers cannot be said to be suffering from any such irrationality or Haresh Mohandas Rajput v. State of unreasonableness, which would have enabled the Maharashtra .... 921 High Court to interfere with the decision - Junior SERVICE LAW: Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing (Group C) (1) Disciplinary proceedings - Departmental Inquiry Recruitment Rules, 1977 - rr.14 and 18. against a Junior Clerk in the Subordinate Court - (Also see under: Administrative Law) Chief Judge on consideration of the report Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones submitted by the Inquiry Officer, dismissed the District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited delinquent from service - Held: The Inquiry Officer and Ors. v. Surendra Nath Pandey did not base his findings on the evidence recorded and Ors. .... 840 ex-parte but referred to that only for purposes of appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses (3) TERMINATION/DISMISSAL: examined by the department in de novo inquiry (i) Dismissal from service - Workman found guilty 1299 1300 of theft and awarded punishment of dismissal - departmental proceedings - Nor can such an Acquittal in criminal case - Plea of reinstatement action of the department be termed as double - Held: The question of considering reinstatement jeopardy - Facts, charges and nature of evidence after the decision of acquittal or discharge by a etc. involved in an individual case would determine competent criminal court would arise only if as to whether decision of acquittal would have dismissal from service was based on conviction any bearing on the findings recorded in the by criminal court in view of the provisions of Art. domestic enquiry - Evidence. 311(2)(b) of the Constitution or analogous (Also see under: Labour Laws). provisions in the statutory rules - In a case where Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G. enquiry has been held independently of the Vittal Rao .... 1089 criminal proceedings, acquittal in the criminal case is of no help - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. (4) (i) Upgradation - Applicability of reservation 311(2)(b). provisions - Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme - Nature of - Held: As upgradation (ii) Misconduct - Theft - Loss of confidence - Plea involves neither appointment nor promotion, it will of reinstatement - Held: Once the employer has not attract reservation - The BCR scheme was a lost confidence in the employee and the bona fide scheme for upgradation simpliciter without loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of involving any creation of additional posts or any punishment must be considered to be immune process of selection for extending the benefit - from challenge, for the reason that discharging Such a scheme of upgradation did not invite the the office of trust and confidence requires absolute rules of reservation - Constitution of India, 1950 - integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, Arts. 16(4) and 16(4A). reinstatement cannot be directed - In case of theft, loss of confidence of employer in employee is (ii) Promotion and upgradation - Distinguished - important and not the quantum of theft. Principles relating to applicability of rules of reservation - Discussed. (iii) Departmental proceedings vis-à-vis criminal proceedings - Standard of proof - Held: While in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. departmental proceedings, the standard of proof R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors. .... 502 is one of preponderance of probabilities, in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING prosecution beyond reasonable doubt - As the TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT, standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite 1992: different, and termination is not based on mere (i) ss. 11, 3(3) and (4) - Attachment of properties conviction of an employee in a criminal case, the of Notified persons - Sale of shares - Appellants, acquittal of the employee in criminal case cannot their family members and the corporate entities be the basis of taking away the effect of purchased more than 90 lakh shares in 'A' 1301 1302 Company - Attachment of the majority of the of for discharge of liabilities to the banks and holding - Order of the Special Court permitting financial institutions - Thus, a notified party has the Custodian to sell 54,88,850 shares of 'A' an intrinsic interest in the realisations, on the Company at Rs. 90/- per share - Held: Special disposal of any attached property because it would Court failed to make a serious effort to realise have a direct bearing on the discharge of his the highest possible price for the said shares - liabilities in terms of s. 11 - Custodian has to deal Special Court overlooked the norms laid down by with the attached properties only in such manner it; ignored the directions of Supreme Court and as the Special Court may direct - Custodian is glossed over the procedural irregularities required to assist in the attachment of the notified committed by the Custodian - However, sale of person's property and to manage the same 54,88,850 shares was approved and all thereafter - Special Court shall be guided by the procedural modalities are stated to have been principles of natural justice - Doctrines/principles carried out and 36.90 lakh shares of 'A' Company - Principles of natural justice. are claimed to have been extinguished, the relief (Also see under: Natural justice). sought for by the appellants to rescind the entire sale of 54,88,850 shares would be impracticable Ashiwin S. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of and fraught with grave difficulties - Matter remitted India & Ors. .... 1000 to Special Court for taking necessary steps to recover the 4.95% shares from 'A' Company or TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA its management, and put them to fresh sale strictly ACT, 1997: in terms of the norms. (i) s.14(a)(i) - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Held: Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide upon the (ii) s. 10 - Sale of shares of Notified persons - validity of the terms and conditions incorporated Discretion exercised by Special Court under - in the license of a service provider, but it will have Held: On facts, Special Court exercised its jurisdiction to decide "any" dispute between the discretion in complete disregard to its own licensor and the licensee on interpretation of the scheme and 'terms and conditions' approved by terms and conditions of the license - The it for sale of shares and in violation of the principles incorporation of the definition of Adjusted Gross of natural justice, thus, the facts of the case calls Revenue in the license agreement was part of for interference. the terms regarding payment which had been (iii) Object and purpose of the Act - Held: Is not decided upon by the Central Government as a only to punish the persons involved in the act of consideration for parting with its rights of exclusive criminal misconduct by defrauding the banks and privilege in respect of telecommunication financial institutions but also to see that the activities, and having accepted the license and properties, belonging to the persons notified by availed the exclusive privilege of the Central the Custodian were appropriated and disposed Government to carry on telecommunication activities, the licensees could not have 1303 1304 approached the Tribunal for an alteration of the license agreement and in particular the definition definition of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license of Adjusted Gross Revenue in the license agreement - The decision of the Central agreement and can also interpret the terms and Government on the point was final under the first conditions of the license agreement. proviso and the fifth proviso to s.11(1) of the Act (Also see under: Appeal; and Telegraph Act) - Telegraph Act, 1885. Union of India and Anr. v. Association of (ii) 11(1)(a) - Recommendations of TRAI - Held: Unified Telecom Service Providers of TRAI has been conferred with the statutory power India and Ors. .... 657 to make recommendations on the terms and conditions of the license to a service provider and TELEGRAPH ACT: the Central Government is bound to seek the s.4(1), proviso - Held: A license granted in favour recommendations of TRAI on such terms and of any person under proviso to sub-s.(1) of s.4 of conditions at different stages, but the the Act is in the nature of a contract between the recommendations of TRAI are not binding on the Central Government and the licensee - Central Government and the final decision on the Consequently, the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of a license to a service license are part of a contract between the licensor provider rested with the Central Government. and the licensee - Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. (iii) s.11(1)(b), (c), (d) - Recommendations of TRAI (Also see under: Telecom Regulatory - Held: The functions of TRAI under clause (b) of Authority of India Act, 1997) sub-s. (1) of s.11 of TRAI Act are not recommendatory. Union of India and Anr. v. Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of (iv) s.11(1)(a) and s.11(1)(b) - Distinction between India and Ors. .... 657 - Discussed. TEXTILE UNDERTAKINGS (NATIONALISATION) ACT, (v) s.14(a)(i) - Stage when dispute can be raised 1995: regarding the computation of Adjusted Gross ss.3(1) and (2) - Right, title and interest of textile Revenue made by the licensor - Held: The undertaking vested in Central Government and dispute can be raised by the licensee, after the thereafter in appellant-National Textile Corporation license agreement has been entered into and the by statutory transfer - Meaning of the expression appropriate stage when the dispute can be raised 'vesting' - Held: 'Vesting' means having obtained is when a particular demand is raised on the an absolute and indefeasible right - It refers to licensee by the licensor - When such a dispute is and is used for transfer or conveyance - 'Vesting' raised against a particular demand, the Tribunal may mean vesting in title, vesting in possession will have to go into the facts and materials on the or vesting in a limited sense, as indicated in the basis of which the demand is raised and decide context in which it is used in a particular provision whether the demand is in accordance with the 1305 1306 of the Act. WORDS AND PHRASES: (Also See under: Maharashtra Rent (1)'Court' - Meaning of - Discussed. Control Act, 1999; and Pleadings) Trans Mediterranean Airways v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Universal Exports & Anr. .... 47 Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. .... 472 (2)Term 'intellectual property' - Meaning of. UTTAR PRADESH BREWERY RULES 1961: r.53. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. (See under: Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, Shaunak H.Satya & Ors. .... 328 1910)...... 98 (3) 'Vesting' - Meaning of. UTTAR PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1910: National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. (i) s.29(e)(i) - Beer - Excisablity of - Stage when Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. .... 472 the beer manufactured is exigible to duty - Held: When the fermentation process of wort is completed, it becomes an alcoholic liquor for human consumption and there is no legal impediment for subjecting beer to excise duty at that stage - State has legislative competence to levy excise duty on beer either after the completion of the process of fermentation and filtration, or after fermentation - Excise laws - Liquor. (ii) s.28A - Imposition of additional duty - Excess manufacturing wastage - Basis for determination - Held: The base measurement is taken in the fermentation vessel and 9% standard allowance is provided to cover losses on account of evaporation, sullage and other contingencies within the Brewery - Uttar Pradesh Brewery Rules 1961 - r.53. (Also see under: Constitution of India, 1950) State of U.P. & Ors. v. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & Anr. .... 98

WARSAW CONVENTION: (See under: Consumer Protection Act, 1986) .... 47 LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING

CHAIRMAN

HON’BLE SHRI. S.H. KAPADIA CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS Containing Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of India MEMBERS

VOLUME INDEX HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN [2011] 14 S.C.R. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

MR. G.E. VAHANVATI (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA)

EDITORS MR. PRAVIN H. PAREKH RAJENDRA PRASAD, M.A., LL.M. (NOMINEE OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION) BIBHUTI BHUSHAN BOSE, B.SC. (HONS.), M.B.E., LL.B. Secretary ASSISTANT EDITORS KALPANA K. TRIPATHY, M.A., LL.B. SUNIL THOMAS NIDHI JAIN, B.A., LL.B., PGD in IPR. and ITL. (Registrar) DEVIKA GUJRAL, B.COM. (HONS.), Grad. C.W.A., LL.B.

PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI. (www. supremecourtofindia.nic.in)

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 21. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan (From 02.09.2011 to 29.11.2011) 22. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar

1. Hon’ble Shri. S.H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of India 23. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar 2. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir 24. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad 3. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran (Retired on 25. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. L. Gokhale 14.10.2011) 26. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra 4. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari 5. Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. K. Jain 27. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave 6. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju (Retired on 28. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya 19.09.2011) 29. Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai 7. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Bedi (Retired on 04.09.2011) 30. Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar 8. Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam 31. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra 9. Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Singhvi 32. Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar 10. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam 11. Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. M. Panchal (Retired on 05.10.2011) 12. Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma (Retired on 17.09.2011) 13. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph 14. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly 15. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha 16. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. L. Dattu 17. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma 18. Hon’ble Dr. Justice B. S. Chauhan 19. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik 20. Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. S. Thakur CORRIGENDA ERRATA VOLUME INDEX 14 (2011) VOLUME INDEX 14 (2011)

Page Line Read for Read as Page Line Read for Read as No. No. No. No. 612 10 from benefit of benefit without 108 6 from Jhanvi Woraha Jhanvi Waraha bottom bottom